28 repair it, if it finds there has been a violation. 136 As was previously mentioned, the existence of these guarantees, and by extension, of a model of exercise of control for conformity with the Convention “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also of the rule of law in a democratic society as per the Convention.” 137 92. Likewise, it cannot be ignored that the fulfillment of the obligation to guarantee the right to judicial protection does not correspond solely to the judges, but to all public authorities, including the legislature, who must ensure that this type of remedy is provided for in the law. Thus, the commitments of the States pursuant to Article 25(2) have an intimidate relationship with the general obligation to guarantee established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, as well as the obligation to adopt domestic legal measures that Article 2 of the Convention provides. The foregoing serve to guarantee that the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State determines the rights of any person claiming such remedy;138 the development of the possibilities of judicial remedy;139 and that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.140 93. It is important to once again note that the State Parties to the American Convention have wide margins to comply with these general obligations. This approach has been constant in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal by indicating that what is important is the observance of “effectiveness” in terms of the principle of the effet utile “and this means that the State must take such measures as may be necessary to actually comply with the provisions of the Convention”;141 as such, the Inter-American Court has considered it necessary to reaffirm that such obligation, by its very nature, constitutes an obligation of results.142 94. Therefore, it can be said that integration at the normative level, but especially at the interpretative level in the international and domestic domain contributes to the consolidation of an integrated Inter-American System, which allows an intense dialogue between all judicial practitioners, especially with judges of all hierarchies and subject-matters, which inextricably produces the basis for the consolidation of the legal means to guarantee the effectiveness of fundamental rights and the creation of a ius constitutionale commune in the area of human rights in our region. IV. THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THIS CASE 136 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 100. 137 Case of Cantos V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 52; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No 99, para. 121; and Case of Maritza Urrutia V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 117. 138 Cf. Article 25(2)(a) of the American Convention. 139 Cf. Article 25(2)(b) of the American Convention. 140 Cf. Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. 141 Case of Comunidad Indígena Yakye Axa V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C, No. 125, para. 101. 142 Cf. Case of Caesar V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 93.