169. The Court has established that, for an effective remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it exists formally.203 This means that the remedy should be appropriate to contest the violation and that its application by the competent authority be effective. 204 In addition, the Court has established that an effective judicial remedy implies that the analysis of a judicial remedy by the competent authority cannot be reduced to a mere formality, but rather the said authority must examine the reasons cited by the plaintiff and rule on them expressly.205 This does not mean that the Court assesses the effectiveness of a remedy based on whether it has produced a favorable result for the plaintiff.206 The Court has indicated that, by virtue of Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention, State responsibility does not end when the competent authorities issue a decision or judgment, but also requires the State to ensure the means to execute the final decisions, so that the rights declared are protected effectively. 207 170. The Court has also indicated that, in light of Article 8(1) of the Convention, everyone has the right to a hearing by a competent and impartial court with due procedural guarantees, which include the possibility of presenting arguments and providing evidence. The Court has indicated that this provision of the Convention means that the State must ensure that the decision resulting from the proceedings satisfies the purpose for which it was conceived. This does not mean that it must always be accepted, but that its ability to produce the result for which it was conceived must be guaranteed. 208 In addition, the Court recalls that the right of access to justice requires that a dispute must be decided in a reasonable time because, in certain cases, a prolonged delay may, in itself, constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. 209 171. Furthermore, the Court has asserted that the obligation to provide the reasons for a ruling is one of the guarantees included in Article 8(1) to safeguard the right to due process of law.210 The reasoning is the exteriorization of the justification allowing a conclusion to be Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 188. 203 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, paras. 251 and 252. 204 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 267. 205 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 67, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 34. 206 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348. para. 208. 207 Cf. Case of 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 the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 153. 208 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 421. 209 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Contentious Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 78, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 268. 210 60