judgments delivered by those competent authorities, so that the rights that have been declared or recognized are truly protected. 153 149. Specifically with regard to the effectiveness of the remedy, the Court has established that the meaning of the protection granted by Article 25 is that there is a real possibility of access to a judicial remedy so that a competent authority determines whether there has been a violation of a right claimed by the person filing the action, and that the remedy is useful to restitute to the interested party the enjoyment of his right and to provide reparation, if it is found that there has been a violation.154 150. In principle, the Court recalls that, despite the explicit prohibition contained in article 2 of Senate Resolution No. 122, Messrs. Ríos Ávalos and Fernández Gadea filed actions of unconstitutionality to contest both Resolution No. 122, which established the procedure for the impeachment proceedings, and Resolution No. 134, which ordered their removal from their functions. These actions were decided in their favor by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in Judgments Nos. 951 and 952 delivered on December 30, 2009, declaring “the nullity of the [contested] resolutions” and, “consequently,” ordering the “reinstatement” of Messrs. Ríos Ávalos and Fernández Gadea in their functions as justices of the Supreme Court of Justice.155 151. Therefore, the presumed victims had access to a judicial remedy that allowed them to claim the protection of their rights in response to actions of the public authorities that they considered violated those rights. This would correspond to the first State obligation derived from the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the rulings of the Constitutional Chamber were not executed in light of subsequently events. 152. Indeed, because the judgments of December 30, 2009, were favorable to the claims of the two appellants, the National Congress,156 by Resolution No. 1 of January 2, 2010, publicly indicated that it “vigorously repudiated” and “rejected as totally null and void” the decisions of the Constitutional Chamber (supra para. 44). In addition, the Legislature “advise[d] the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Council of the Judiciary, the Jury for the Prosecution of Judges, and the Executive that, if the validity of the judgment[s] [was] admitted, they w[ould] incur in grounds for impeachment.”157 153. Consequently, on January 5, 2010, the Supreme Court of Justice issued Resolution No. 2382, declaring that Judgments Nos. 951 and 952 “lack[ed] legal force,” and also ordered that the justices who had delivered those judgments be “suspended from their functions,” based on the argument that they had acted “contrary to the Constitution and the applicable legal framework.”158 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 Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 116. 154 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), 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 of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 117. 155 Cf. Judgment No. 951 of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay, and Judgment No. 952 of December 30, 2009, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume I, annex 10 to the Merits Report, folios 84 to 148). 156 That is, “both Chambers” meeting together, pursuant to article 183 of the Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay. 157 Cf. Resolution No. 1 of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of January 2, 2010 (evidence file, volume I, annex 11 to the Merits Report, folios 150 and 151). 158 Cf. Resolution No. 2382 of the Supreme Court of Justice of January 5, 2010 (evidence file, volume I, annex 12 to the Merits Report, folios 153 to 155). 153 39