83 be filed by the Public Prosecutors’ Office, but not by the victim or its legal representatives, even if they are collaborators of the Social Representative […].287 293. Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez filed an appeal for revision against said decision. The Tribunal observes that, by “reason of duty”, it corresponded to the same First Collegiate Court that resolved the matter regarding the jurisprudential conflict (supra para. 265) to hear the appeal for revision mentioned. From the decision of November 24, 2005, requested by this Tribunal as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 12) it can be concluded that the First Collegiate Court established that they would not “[s]ubmit to study the appealed ruling or the infringements proposed by [Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez],” since what was being claimed referred to the jurisdictional conflict that had already been resolved. In that sense, said Collegiate Court stated that a cause different to that invoked by the Second District Court (supra para. 292) to dismiss the appeal of relief had “supervened” and that, therefore, that stated in Article 73, fraction XVI, of the Law on the Appeal of Relief, according to which, this does not proceed “[o]nce the effects of the act claimed has ceased” was applicable.288 Therefore, based on the fact that the jurisdiction had already been solved in favor of the military jurisdiction in the same matter, the First Collegiate Court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal for protection filed by Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez. 294. From the aforementioned, it can be clearly concluded that Mrs. Tita Radilla was deprived of the possibility to contest the jurisdiction of military courts to hear matters that, due to their nature, shall correspond to the authorities of the ordinary jurisdiction. 295. In this sense, the Court has mentioned that the States have the responsibility to enshrine in provisions and to guarantee the due application of effective recourses and the guarantees of the due process of law before the competent authorities that protect all the people under its jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of their rights and obligations.289 296. In this sense, the Court has established that in order for the State to comply with that stated in Article 25 of the Convention, it is not enough for the recourses to exist formally, but instead it is necessary that they be effective in the terms of that precept.290 The Court has reiterated that said obligation implies that the recourse be suitable to fight the violation and that its application by the competent authority be effective.291 287 Cf. Judgment of the Sixth District Court in the State of Guerrero, of September 6, 2005, dossier PRAL. 854/2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix F(3), folios 2036 through 2037). 288 Cf. Judgment of the First Collegiate Court in Criminal and Administrative Matters of the Twenty-First Circuit, of November 24, 2005 (dossier of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case presented by the State on November 2, 2009, folios 3203, 3205, and 3214). 289 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 79; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 145, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, supra note 139, para. 72. 290 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 4; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 131, and Case of Escher v. Brazil, supra note 64, para. 196. 291 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, supra note 51, para. 117; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra note 290, para. 131, and Case of Escher v. Brazil, supra note 64, para. 196.