B. Considerations of the Court 237. The Court has stated repeatedly that States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), and these must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), under the general State obligation to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention (Article 1(1)).266 The inexistence of an effective remedy for the violations of the rights recognized in the Convention entails a violation of the Convention by the State Party in which this situation occurs.267 238. The Court has also interpreted that the scope of the State obligation to provide a judicial remedy established in Article 25 of the Convention is not restricted to the mere existence of courts and formal proceedings; rather, the State must also take positive measures to ensure that such remedies are effective to decide whether there has been a human rights violation and, eventually, to provide redress.268 239. Thus this article identifies two specific State obligations. The first is to legislate and ensure the due application by the competent authorities of effective remedies that protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of their rights and obligations. The second is to guarantee the means to execute the respective decisions and final judgments issued by those competent authorities so that the rights that have been declared or recognized are truly protected. 269 240. As regards indigenous and tribal peoples, this Court’s case law has indicated that States have the obligation to establish appropriate proceedings under their domestic laws to process the land claims of the indigenous peoples as a result of the general obligation to ensure rights established in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.270 Thus, the remedies offered by the State should provide a real possibility271 for the indigenous and tribal communities to be able to defend their rights and exercise effective control over their territory. 272 241. Based on the above, the Court will now examine the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. To this end, it will assess: (a) the appropriate and effective remedies in the domestic laws to protect the rights of the indigenous and tribal peoples; (b) the appropriateness and effectiveness of the petitions filed before the State authorities, and (c) the right of access to information in relation to Article 25 of the American Convention. 266 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No.1, para. 91, and Case of López Lone, supra, para. 245. 267 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, para. 113, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members, supra, paras. 193 and 198. 268 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, paras. 63, 68 and 81 and Case of the Kuna Indigenous Community of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous Community of Bayano and their members, supra, para. 165. 269 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 196. 270 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 102, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 109. 271 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 90, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra, para. 144. 272 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, paras. 148 to 153 and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members, supra, para. 112. 62