B. The right to judicial protection42 66. The IACHR recalls that the State has the general obligation to provide effective judicial recourse to persons who claim to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which must be substantiated pursuant to the rules of due process of law (Article 8.1). In order for an effective recourse to exist it is not enough for it to be merely provided for by the law but it must be truly suitable to establish whether a human rights violation has been committed, and provide for what is needed to remedy it.43 In assessing the effectiveness of recourses, it must be examined whether the decisions in judicial proceedings have effectively contributed to putting an end to the situation violating the rights, to ensuring non-repetition of the harmful acts and to ensuring the free and full exercise of the rights protected by the Convention.44 67. In the instant case, the Commission takes note that the alleged victim availed himself of administrative and constitutional recourses. 68. As to administrative remedies, the Commission recalls that the alleged victim filed a motion for reconsideration with the Attorney General of the Nation, which was denied on February 14, 2003 by said authority, on the grounds that the Mr. Casa Nina’s appointment was of a provisional nature and that he failed to disprove the grounds of the decision that removed him from office. 69. With regard to constitutional remedies, the Commission notes that the alleged victim brought an amparo suit with the First Specialized Court for Civil Matters of Huamanga, which was denied on April 19, 2005, as it was found that the alleged victim held a provisional post, that the decision made by the Attorney General of the Nation does not constitute a disciplinary measure and that no violation of the Constitution was proven. 70. The alleged victim appealed this decision to the Specialized Chamber for Civil Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Ayacucho, which denied the appeal on July 11, 2005, inasmuch as it found that the plaintiff sought to allege rights to which tenured prosecutors are entitled. 71. Lastly, the IACHR recalls that the alleged victim also filed a petition for relief for denial of rights with the Constitutional Court, which was found groundless on November 14, 2005, with the Court reiterating that the provisional appointment constitutes a situation that does not give rise to rights other than those inherent to the office. 72. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that none of the recourses pursued by the alleged victim was effective to challenge the decision terminating his appointment as Provisional Provincial Deputy Prosecutor of the Judicial District of Ayacucho and review the violations of due process and the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto law), which arose as a consequence of his removal from office, as examined in the instant report. 73. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Commission concludes that the Peruvian State violated the right to judicial protection set forth in Article 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Julio Casa Nina. Article 25.1 of the Convention provides that: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 43IA Court of HR, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Par. 125; IA Court of HR, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125. Par. 61; IA Court of HR, Case of the “Five Pensioners.” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98. Par. 136. 44 IA Court of HR, Case of Ramírez Escobar et al v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, pars. 251-252. 42 13