70 7. The State has violated the right of Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Ana María Ruggeri Cova to a fair trial by an independent court, under the provisions of Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the general duties established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 109 to 148 of this Judgment. 8. The State has violated the right to be heard within a reasonable time, as enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera and Perkins Rocha Contreras, in accordance with paragraphs 157 to 161 and 172 to 181 of this Judgment. 9. The State has violated the right to simple, prompt, and effective recourse to a competent court for the protection of one’s rights as enshrined in Article 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera and Perkins Rocha Contreras, in accordance with paragraphs 150 to 156 and 171 of this Judgment. 10. The State has not violated the right to judicial protection of Ana María Ruggeri Covas, under the provisions of Article 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in accordance with paragraphs 182 to 185 of this Judgment. 11. The State has not violated the right to equality before the law of Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, Perkins Rocha Contreras, and Ana María Ruggeri Covas, under the provisions of Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in accordance with paragraphs 190 to 200 of this Judgment. 12. The State has not violated the right to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service in his country, as enshrined in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, Perkins Rocha Contreras, and Ana María Ruggeri Cova, in accordance with paragraphs 201 to 207 of this Judgment. 13. The State has not violated the general clause of non-discrimination as enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the substantive right to be heard within a reasonable time, under the provisions of Article 8(1) thereof, in accordance with paragraphs 208 to 215 of this Judgment. 14. The alleged violation of Article 29(c) and 29(d) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter is not admissible, under the terms of paragraphs 216 to 223 of this Judgment. 15. This Judgment is in and of itself a form of redress.