10 deconstruct it, dissociating Articles 8 from 25, apparently due to pure amateurishness or any reason that escapes my comprehension. The jurisprudence of the Court in the line of the position I maintain does not end there. In the well-known case of Bámaca Velásquez versus Guatemala (Judgment of 11.25.2000), the Court expressly took as a whole “the guarantees enshrined in Article 8 and the judicial protection established in Article 25 of the Convention” to analyze the alleged violations of rights in the cas d'espèce (para. 187). And, in the case of Myrna Mack Chang versus Guatemala (Judgment of 11.25.2003), the Court very significantly stated: "(...) the Court must examine the domestic judicial proceedings as a whole to attain a comprehensive perception of them and to establish whether said actions contravene the standards on the right to fair trial and judicial protection and the right to effective remedy, derived from Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention."21 27. Only an integrative hermeneutics, like the one I have been maintaining and constructing in the heart of this Court for more than a decade, can offer a necessarily integrative vision of the violation of one or more rights protected under the Convention, with direct consequences for the adequate determination of the reparations. That is an additional matter that should not go unnoticed. Also, in another well-known case of this Court, that is already the object of some books dedicated specifically to it,22 that of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al. versus Guatemala, Judgment of 11.19.1999), the Court once more stated that it "must examine all the domestic judicial proceedings in order to obtain an integrated vision of these acts and establish whether or not it is evident that they violated the norms on the obligation to investigate, and the right to be heard and to an effective recourse, which arise from Articles 1.1, 8 and 25 of the Convention."23 28. In the same Judgment in the historical case of the “Street Children”, the Court added that "Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention define, with reference to the acts and omissions of the internal judicial bodies, the scope of the (…) principle of generation of responsibility for the acts of all State organs." (para. 220) That is, the provisions of Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention, taken as a whole, are fundamental for the proper determination of the scope of the existence of the State’s responsibility, even for acts or omissions of the Judicial Power (or of any other power of agent of the State). 29. In the case of Juan Humberto Sánchez versus Honduras (Judgment of 06.07.2003), the Court warned that the recourses that, due to the “general conditions of the country” in question, or even by the “specific circumstances” of a specific case, “are deceptive” can not be considered “effective” (para. 121). That is, access to justice 21 Para. 201 of the mentioned Judgment (emphasis added). 22 Cf., on the referred Case of the "Street Children", e.g.: CEJIL, Crianças e Adolescentes Jurisprudência da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, Rio de Janeiro, CEJIL/Brazil, 2003, pp. 7-237; Casa Alianza, Los Pequeños Mártires..., San Jose, Costa Rica, Casa Alianza/A.L., 2004, pp. 13-196; among several other publications on the case in study. 23 Para. 224 of the mentioned Judgment (emphasis added), and cf. para. 225.