justice.252 Hence, the proceedings must be conducive to achieving the protection of the right recognized in the judicial decision by the appropriate implementation of the said ruling.253 201. Furthermore, as the Court indicated previously, when evaluating the effectiveness of the remedies filed under the domestic administrative jurisdiction, the Court must observe whether the decisions taken in that jurisdiction have made a real contribution to ending a situation that violates rights, to guaranteeing the non-repetition of the harmful acts and to ensuring the free and full exercise of the rights protected by the Convention.254 The Court does not assess the effectiveness of the remedies filed based on a possible decision in favor of the victim’s interests.255 202. The Court finds that, in order to decide the dispute between the parties concerning the effectiveness of judicial protection in the instant case, it must include some relevant consideration on the scope of the review that a judicial remedy must provide in order to be effective in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention. 203. The Court will refer to some relevant factors in cases such as this one, where a prior administrative decision that is alleged to violate the rights of an alleged victim has been submitted to the judicial bodies. To this end, the Court will take into account the jurisprudence developed by the European Court of Human Rights in this matter.256 In this regard, The Court considers that it is important to analyze factors such as: (a) the competence of the judicial body in question; (b) the subject matter on which the administrative body ruled, taking into account whether it concerned specialized information requiring professional knowledge or experience; (c) the purpose of the dispute filed before the judicial body, including the factual and legal arguments of the parties, and (d) the guarantees of due process before the judicial body. Regarding the latter, the Court has established, in its consistent case law, that to preserve the right to an effective remedy under Article 25 of the Convention, it is essential that the said remedy be processed in keeping with the rules of due process of law embodied in Article 8 of the Convention.257 204. This Court is in general agreement with the European Court in understanding that a judicial review is sufficient when the judicial body examines all the allegations and arguments submitted to its consideration concerning the decision of the administrative 252 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra note 207, para. 24; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 7, para. 137; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 127, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 251, para. 94. 253 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 127, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 251, para. 95. 254 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 21, para. 210; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 18, paras. 127 and 128, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 184. 255 Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 128, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 184. 256 “In assessing the sufficiency of a judicial review available to an applicant, the Court will have regard to the powers of the judicial body in question […], and to such factors as (a) the subject-matter of the decision appealed against, in particular, whether or not it concerned a specialized issue requiring professional knowledge or experience and whether it involved the exercise of administrative discretion and if, so, to what extent; (b) the manner in which that decision was arrived at, in particular, the procedural guarantees available in the proceedings before the adjudicatory body; and (c) the content of the dispute, including the desired and actual grounds of appeal.” ECHR, Case of Sigma Radio Television Ltd. v. Cyprus. Judgment of 21 July 2011. App. Nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05, para. 154. 257 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. 148; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra note 208, para. 127, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 215, para. 193. 78