B. Considerations of the Court 116. This Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligations of the States Parties to ensure to everyone subject to their jurisdiction a simple, prompt and effective remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 112 On this basis, the Court has indicated that, pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention, two specific State obligations can be identified. The first, to enact and to ensure the due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect everyone subject to their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that involve the determination of their rights and obligations. The second, to ensure the means to execute the respective final judgments and decisions issued by those competent authorities so that they truly protect the rights declared or recognized.113 The right established in Article 25 is closely related to the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the Convention by attributing functions of protection to the domestic law of the States Parties.114 Consequently, the State is responsible not only for creating and enacting an effective remedy, but also for ensuring that this remedy is applied properly by its judicial authorities.115 117. Specifically with regard to the effectiveness of the remedy, the Court has established that the meaning of the protection indicated in this article is the real possibility of having access to a judicial remedy so that a competent authority, qualified to issue a binding decision, determines whether or not there has been a violation of any right that the petitioner claims that he has and that, if a violation is found, the remedy is useful to restore to the party concerned the enjoyment of his rights and to redress the violation. 116 This does not mean that the effectiveness of a remedy is assessed depending on whether it produces a result that is favorable to the petitioner.117 118. In the instant case, Mr. Casa Nina challenged the decision that terminated his appointment as a provisional prosecutor by filing an application for amparo. In his application, he requested the protection of the rights to work, to due process and “not to be removed from office” and, in addition to contesting the – in his opinion – unilateral and unjustified decision of the Prosecutor General, he reiterated that no disciplinary administrative procedure had been instituted against him.118 In response, the First Civil Court of Huamanga, Ayacucho, declared the application unsubstantiated based on both the petitioner’s “condition of provisional […] and not incumbent,” and on the assertion that the decision that terminated the appointment did not respond to the nature of a “disciplinary measure of removal from office.”119 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 Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 130. 112 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 237, and Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2020. Series C No. 401, para. 79. 113 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 209. 114 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 237, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 209. 115 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 100, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 210. 116 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 67, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 210. 117 Cf. Application for amparo of November 29, 2004 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 19 to the answering brief, folios 967 to 980). 118 Cf. Judgment delivered by the judge of the First Civil Court of Huamanga, Ayacucho, on April 19, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 7 to the Merits Report, folios 25 to 27). 119 33