rights recognized by the Convention constitutes a violation of this instrument by the State Party in which such a situation occurs. 249 232. The Court has interpreted that the scope of the State’s obligation to provide a judicial remedy, established in Article 25 of the Convention, is not restricted to the mere existence of courts or formal proceedings; rather, the State must also adopt positive measures to ensure that those remedies are effective to decide whether human rights have been violated and to provide a possible reparation. 250 Based on this article, two specific State responsibilities can be identified: the first, that States must establish by law and ensure due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations. 251 The second, that they must guarantee the means to execute the respective decisions and judgments issued by those competent authorities so that the rights that are declared or recognized are protected effectively. 252 233. In relation to indigenous and tribal peoples, this Court has established in its case law that States have the obligation to establish appropriate procedures within their domestic legal system to process their land claims, derived from the general obligation to ensure rights established in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. 253 The remedies provided by the State should represent a real possibility 254 for the indigenous and tribal communities to be able to defend their rights and exercise effective control over their territory without any outside interference. 255 B.1 The proceedings to protect the property of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community from third parties by providing clear title 234. Based on the foregoing, in this chapter the Court will analyze the disputes related to the violation of Article 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this treaty. Therefore, it will assess: (a) the suitability and effectiveness of the Ad Hoc Interinstitutional Commission and the conciliation agreements; (b) the execution of the commitments made, and (c) the alleged lack of an adequate and effective remedy under domestic law in this case. Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, para. 113, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members, supra, paras. 193 and 198. 250 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, paras. 63, 68 and 81 and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members, supra, para. 165. 251 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63, para. 237, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 196. 252 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra, para. 237 and Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra, para. 196. 253 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 102, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra, para. 109. 254 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 90, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra, para. 144. 255 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra, paras. 148 to 153, and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members, supra, para. 112. 249 67