-13statu nascendi on the matter (as widely recognized in the specialized bibliography), the Court once again considered as a whole the right to an effective recourse and the guarantees of due process of law (Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention). After emphasizing the need to interpret the Convention in such a way that "the system for the protection of human rights should have all its appropriate effects (effet utile)" (para. 58), according to the necessarily evolutive interpretation of all the corpus juris of international human rights law (paras. 114-115), the Court stated clearly and categorically that: "In the opinion of this Court, for “the due process of law,” a defendant must be able to exercise his rights and defend his interests effectively and in full procedural equality with other defendants." (para. 117). 34. Thus, according to the Court - in a luminous advisory opinion which is, today, a benchmark in its case law and in its history (together with Advisory Opinion OC18/03 on The Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants of 2003) - there is simply no due process without an effective recourse before competent national courts or tribunals, and the provisions of Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention are unavoidably linked, not only at the conceptual level, but also - and above all - in hermeneutics. The Court added, in the said Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 on The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law, that it is necessary to be attentive to ensure and confirm that all defendants: "Enjoy a true opportunity for justice and the benefit of due process of law (...)" (para. 119). VII. The indivisibility of Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention in the consistent case law of the Inter-American Court 35. In its consistent case law, the Inter-American Court has, with the appropriate reasoning, always combined its consideration of alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, as exemplified by its judgments in Barrios Altos (Chumbipuma Aguirre et al.) v. Peru (of March 14, 2001, paras. 47-49), Las Palmeras v. Colombia (of December 6, 2001, paras. 48-66), Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama (of February 2, 2001, paras. 119-143), Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala (of November 25, 2003, paras. 162-218), Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala (of November 27, 2003, paras. 107-130, the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia (of July 5, 2004, paras. 159-206), the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru (of July 8, 2004, paras. 137-156), the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (of March 1, 2005, paras. 52-107), Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago (of March 11, 2005, paras. 103-117), the Moiwana Community v. Suriname (of June 15, 2005, paras. 139-167), the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay (of June 17, 2005, paras. 55-119), Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala (of June 20, 2005, paras. 58-83), Yatama v. Nicaragua (of June 23, 2005, paras. 145-177), the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia (of September 15, 2005, paras. 193-241), and Gómez Palomino v. Peru (of November 22, 2005, paras. 72-86)31 31 . And cf. also, likewise, its judgments in the Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. the Dominican Republic (of September 8, 2005, para. 201), and Palamara Iribarne v. Chile (of November 22, 2005, paras. 120-189).