- 80 been committed and stipulate what is required to redress this. Thus, the procedure must be aimed at implementing the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling by applying the ruling appropriately.417 246. The representatives and the Commission argued that the presumed victims did not have access to a remedy to counter the violations of due process committed by the Judicial Service Council, owing to the prohibition to appeal against the decisions of this organ established in article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, as well as the supposed ineffectiveness of the application for amparo, in the context of the facts of this case. 247. This Court has indicated that remedies that are illusory, owing to the general situation of a country or even the specific circumstances of a particular case, cannot be considered effective. 418 This can occur, for example, when their futility has been revealed in the practice, because there is no way of executing decisions or due to any other situation that constitutes a denial of justice.419 The situations that lead to a remedy being illusory include that in which the Judiciary lacks the necessary independence to rule with impartiality.420 248. The Court has already determined that the availability of the application for amparo to contest the decisions of the Judicial Service Council was unclear owing to article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, which made it impossible to file ordinary or special appeals against such decisions (supra para. 28). Nevertheless, the Court notes that, even if it had been available owing to the constitutional norms alleged by the State, the context in which the facts of this case occurred and the characteristics of the procedure that would have had to be followed reveal that it would have been ineffective. 249. The facts of this case occurred following a coup d’état and the actions of the presumed victims against this internationally wrongful act (supra paras. 148 and 152). In addition, the Court has already emphasized the role played by the Supreme Court of Justice in this regard, as well as its lack of impartiality (supra paras. 229 and 234). As explained by the parties and the Commission, any application for amparo against the decisions of the Judicial Service Council would have had to be decided by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court.421 Given that the plenum of the Supreme Court had participated in the disciplinary proceedings against the presumed victims, by law, the members of its Constitutional Chamber could not have ruled on the applications for amparo in the same proceedings.422 However, the norms and procedures that would have been applied in 417 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73; and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 345. 418 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 Brewer Carías v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C No. 278, para. 100. 419 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 58; and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 107. 420 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 7, para. 137, and Case of 19 Traders v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 192. 421 422 The Commission, the representatives and the State all agree on this point. As indicated by the State, article 7 of the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts established that: “No judge or justice may occupy this position in different courts in one and the same case,” and, based on this rule, none of the justices that had taken part in the dismissals of the presumed victims could have decided the applications for amparo filed by the presumed victims against the decisions of the Judicial Service Council (merits file, folio 1790). Furthermore, article 303 of the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras stipulates that: “There shall be no more than two instances in any trial: the judge or justice who has exercised jurisdiction in one of them may not sit on the bench in the other, or in any special appeal on the same matter, without being held responsible.” 1982 Constitution of the Republic of Honduras (as amended up until January 20, 2006), article 303. Available at: