Argentine courts regarding the alleged violation of due process allegedly entailed by holding a second hearing in the appeals proceeding against the first instance criminal judgment. 193. Regarding the payment that the presumed victims allegedly had to make following the inadmissibility of the remedy of complaint, the Court notes that the representatives based their arguments on the fact that access to justice should not be subject to a charge (supra para. 187). In this regard, the Court has indicated that the right of access to justice is not absolute and, consequently, may be subject to some discretional limitations by the State, which should ensure correspondence between the means used and the objective pursued and, in short, cannot suppose the negation of this right. 327 In this regard, the Court considers that charging a sum of money for the rejection of the remedy of complaint before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation does not constitute per se an obstruction of access to justice. To the contrary, the representatives would have to show that this charge was unreasonable or represented a serious prejudice to their financial capacity, which they have not done in this case. 194. With regard to the alleged prescription of the civil action and the expiry of the reregistration of the precautionary measure, this Court considers that the representatives have not argued how these presumed non-compliances with domestic law are directly related to the international human rights obligations included in the Convention. Consequently, the Court will not analyze these arguments. 195. Also, in relation to the loss of the cassettes that the presumed victims had submitted as evidence in the civil proceeding, as well as the alleged violation of Article 25, this Court considers that the substance of these arguments has already been examined in the section of this chapter analyzing the reasonable time of the proceeding for damages (supra paras. 167 to 183). Nevertheless, the Court finds it appropriate to recall that the absence of a response that is favorable to the interests of the claimant does not necessarily signify the ineffectiveness of the remedy filed, or that the presumed victims did not have access to an effective remedy. 328 196. Lastly, the Court notes that the representatives argued the violation of Article 24 of the Convention, because “in both the criminal and the civil jurisdiction, the judges always behaved with partiality in favor of the plaintiffs.” This Court recalls that Article 24 establishes the right to be protected against any discrimination arising from unequal protection under domestic law. 329 In this case, the Court considers that the representatives have not submitted any justification or probative support revealing discrimination or unequal treatment of this kind. X REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 327 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 54. Similarly, ECHR, Osman v. the United Kingdom, no. 23452/94 [Grand Chamber], § 147, 148 and 152, 28 October 1998, Report of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII. 328 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 83, and Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 112. 329 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 209, and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, supra, para. 82. 73