100. In relation to Article 25(1) of the Convention, this Court has indicated that it establishes the obligations of the States Parties to ensure to all persons the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate their fundamental rights.104 Regarding the effectiveness of the remedy, the Court has established that it is not sufficient that this be established by the Constitution or the law, or that it be formally admissible; rather, it must be truly appropriate to establish whether a human rights violation has been committed and to provide the necessary means to redress this. Remedies that, due to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances of any given case, prove illusory cannot be considered effective. This may happen when, for example, they prove to be useless in practice because the means to execute decisions are lacking, or in any other situation in which justice is denied.105 101. Additionally, when evaluating the effectiveness of remedies, the Court must verify whether the decisions that were taken have truly contributed to ending a situation that violated rights, to ensure the non-repetition of the harmful acts, and the free and full exercise of the rights protected by the Convention.106 Consequently, the Court does not assess the effectiveness of the remedies filed based on an eventual decision favorable to the victim. 102. The analysis of the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives reveals that the dispute in this case relates to the effectiveness of the application for amparo against the decisions of the National Council of the Judiciary. In this regard, the Court finds that the Peruvian Constitution established that the decisions of the National Council of the Judiciary were not subject to review and the judges interpreted that the only admissible measure to contest them was the application for amparo for violations of due process. Indeed, in this specific case, Mr. Cordero Bernal filed an application for amparo which was declared inadmissible in first and second instance, considering that the decision by which he was dismissed revealed a thorough examination of the disciplinary proceeding and was sufficiently substantiated.107 Subsequently, the Constitutional Court considered that the disciplinary proceeding guaranteed due process and declared the application unfounded. 103. In this case, the judges of the amparo procedure examined the decision adopted by the CNM and concluded that it was duly substantiated and that the right to due process had not been violated. This means that it indicated that the judges examined Mr. Cordero’s claims and determined that they were not admissible. In this Court’s opinion, the conclusions reached by the judges of the amparo procedure were not manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable; also, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, the analysis of whether a remedy is effective does not depend on an eventual decision favorable to the interests of the presumed victims. 104. Consequently, the Court finds that the State of Peru did not violate the right to judicial protection contained in Article 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Hector Fidel Cordero Bernal. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C No. 228, para. 95, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 116. 104 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 58, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 130. 105 Cf. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 252, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 184. 106 107 Cf. Decision of November 27, 1996, issued by the First Public Law Court (evidence file, folios 1380 to 1383). 26