[…] in keeping with the general obligation of […] States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1(1)).” 87 78. The Court has also considered that the effectiveness of the remedies must be assessed in this particular case, bearing in mind whether “there were domestic remedies that guaranteed real access to justice to claim reparation for the violations.” 88 79. In addition, the Court’s constant case law has indicated that, under Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific obligations pertaining to the States. The first obligation consists of embodying in law and ensuring the proper application of effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect all persons under their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that entail the determination of their rights and obligations. The second obligation requires States to guarantee the means to enforce the respective decisions and final judgments issued by such competent authorities, so that the rights declared or recognized are effectively protected. 89 80. With specific reference to the effectiveness of a remedy, the Court has established that the meaning of the protection guaranteed under Article 25 is the real possibility of having access to a judicial remedy whereby a competent authority, capable of issuing a binding decision, may determine whether or not there has been a violation of a right claimed by an individual and that, if a violation is found, the remedy will be useful to restore that person’s enjoyment of his or her right and to provide redress. 90 81. The Court will now analyze the arguments related to the violation of judicial protection with respect to the facts of the case in the following order: 1) the remedies filed by the alleged victims, through the STOJ, 91 to challenge the declaration of illegality of the strike and 2) the remedies filed by the alleged victims and by the STOJ with respect to their dismissals. B.2.1 Remedies to challenge the declaration of illegality of the strike 82. The alleged victims pursued different remedies through the STOJ to challenge the declaration of illegality of the strike. First, during the strike, the workers filed a motion for amparo before the Constitutional Court against the Judiciary’s decision to withhold payment of the strikers’ wages. In a ruling on April 2, 1996, said court ordered the payment of the employees’ wages, provided they immediately returned to work. 92 As to the effectiveness of this remedy, the State provided evidence that the salaries were actually paid, and therefore the remedy was effective. 87 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 125. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 120, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 170. 88 89 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 237, and Case Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 148. 90 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra, para. 24; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 100, and Case Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 149. 91 The economic and social dispute that is the subject of this case was instituted by the STOJ, as one of the two parties that negotiated the renewal of the collective work agreement, in accordance with Article 51 of the Labor Code (supra para. 36). For this reason, in most of the proceedings related to this economic and social dispute that led to the strike, it is the STOJ that acts on behalf of the workers of the Judiciary. 92 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of April 2, 1996 (evidence file, folio 45). 25