striking a balance between the interests at stake and the level of sacrifice required from one party compared to the level of benefit of the other. 67 90. As for the legitimate goal, the IACHR believes that, in principle, the requirements for prior voting by the workers to undertake strikes is aimed at ensuring that they benefit from the collective endorsement of the workers in their call for labor rights, which is a legitimate goal. Furthermore, in terms of suitability, the IACHR considers that the measure contributes, to a certain extent, to securing the goal indicated because the meaning of the voting highlights the will to go on strike. 91. Regarding the requirement of necessity, the IACHR underscores that there are less restrictive measures to achieve the goal proposed, such as establishing simple or relative majorities of the workers present in the vote, as set forth by the ILO Committee of Experts. Taking into account that the requirement of necessity has not been met, it would not be necessary to review the requirement of proportionality in the strict sense; however, the Commission notes that the requirement that workers account for at least two thirds of the total employees of the Judiciary constituted a severe restriction on the right to strike which could be construed, in practice, as rendering it meaningless. 92. Considering that the majority requirement referred to in the preceding paragraphs does not comply with the principle of proportionality, and that the consideration of said requirement was inherent and fundamental to the pronouncement of the legality of the strike by a competent body, for the IACHR it becomes unnecessary to assess whether the workers did not wait for said pronouncement to carry out the strike since in any case, the decision on the legality or not of the strike would have been based on a requirement that does not comply with international standards. 93. Likewise, for the IACHR it does not go unnoticed that the direct consequence of declaring the strike illegal was the collective dismissal of the workers identified in this petition. In that sense, considering that for the IACHR the State violated the right to strike, and that the corresponding authorities based the dismissals on the execution of the strike, there are also sufficient elements to declare the violation of the right to work 68 of the dismissed workers identified in this report. 94. Notwithstanding the above, the Commission notes that the state remedied this violation against 28 persons, who were rehired and whose names appear on the list that is attached to the present report. 95. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State violated the rights to strike and work contained in Article 26 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 65 workers who were dismissed for participating in it. D. The right to judicial protection 69 96. The IACHR recall that the state has the general obligation of providing effective judicial remedies to persons who allege they are victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law (Article 8.1). So that remedy can be effective, it is not enough that it is established in the law, but it must be truly appropriate to establish whether there has been a violation of human rights IACHR, Application before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Karen Atala and daughters, September 17, 2010, para. 86; I/A Court H.R. Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 164. 68 Both the IACtHR and the IACHR have recognized the protection of the right to work through Art. 26 of the American Convention. See, for example: IACHR. Report 25/18, Case 12.428. Admissibility and Merits. Employees of the Fireworks industry in Santo Antonio de Jesus and their families. Brazil. 2 March, 2018; IACtHR. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340. 69 Article 25.1 of the Convention stipulates 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. 67 16