B.2. Right to judicial protection 103. The Court has noted that Article 25(1) of the Convention includes an obligation for States Parties to guarantee that all persons subject to their jurisdiction have access to a simple, expeditious, effective remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights.113 The Court has further asserted that if a remedy is to be considered effective, it is not sufficient for it to be provided under the Constitution or laws or for it to be formally admissible, but rather it must be truly effective for determining whether there has been a violation of human rights and providing redress. A remedy which proves illusory because of the general conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the particular circumstances of a given case, cannot be considered effective.114 This may happen when, for example, a remedy has proven useless in practice because the judicial body lacks the means to enforce its judgments, or in any other situation in which justice is being denied.115 The process should produce real protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling by means of enforcement.116 104. The Court has also understood Article 8(1) of the Convention to mean that the State must guarantee that a decision reached through the proper channels should meet the purpose for which the procedure was intended. This does not suggest that claims will always be upheld, but that the State must guarantee that the procedure is able to produce the result for which it was created.117 In earlier cases of congressional dismissal of judges, the Court has held that the dismissal procedures undertaken before the Congress, subject to legal provisions that should be observed rigorously, may themselves be subject to a judicial appeal on due process of law.118 It said specifically, in the Constitutional Court v. Peru case, “[t]his control does not imply an evaluation of the acts of a strictly political nature that the Constitution attributes to the Legislature.”119 105. The Court recalls in the instant case that on December 2, 2004, the Constitutional Court delivered a ruling that ordered any judge receiving a request for a remedy of amparo against the decision to dismiss the members of the TSE or similar legislative acts to “deny them outright and hold them inadmissible, as otherwise, they would be hearing a case in violation of an express law, which would result in legal liability.” The Court notes that this decision was adopted under an “Order” of the Constitutional Court sitting en banc, the members of which has been appointed subsequent to Resolution 25-160 of the National Congress, by which the members sitting on the court until November 25, 2004 had been removed (supra para. 44). 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 Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 101. 113 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 06, 2001; Series C No. 7, para. 137, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 101. 114 115 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of November 29, 2001. Series C No. 96, para. 58, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 101. 116 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003; Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 101. 117 Cf. Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011; Series C No. 234, para. 122, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 102. Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 94, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 103. 118 119 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 94, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 103. 33