30 Convention. If the Court had developed this view of Article 25 of the American Convention, its differences with the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court under Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention would have been brought to light, and hence, “the consequences of the damages” caused by the violation of Article 8(2)(h) would not have necessarily been encompassed in the alleged affectations of Article 25 of the American Convention. 99. If these standards were to eventually be developed and applied in cases similar to that of Mr. Alibux, at least two clear violations to the right of judicial protection would be found. 100. First, I consider the failure to create a Constitutional Court, which is provided for by the Constitution of Suriname, to have constituted a violation of the American Convention for the omission in its installation and operation to allow the existence of an effective recourse for “protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention,” as stipulated in Article 25, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, of the American Convention. 101. Second, I consider that from this perspective, the victim in the present case would not, at any moment, have had access to an effective judicial remedy that would have protected his claims for conformity with the Convention, constitutionality, and legality, beyond the specific claim with regard to the necessity to respect the right to appeal the judgment enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. And, for that reason, in the particular case, the process of appeal (which was eventually established to challenge the conviction against Mr. Alibux) would not have necessarily been the appropriate remedy to “protect” against violations of either domestic or conventional fundamental rights. 1) The failure to establish a Constitutional Court and the remedies under its jurisdiction as an unconventional act by omission 102. It is not redundant to reiterate that Article 25(1) of the American Convention guarantees the existence of a simple, prompt, and effective remedy before a judge or competent tribunal,146 and that the States Parties are obligated to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25),147 remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of the due process of law (Article 8(1)),148 all within the general obligation of the States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)),149 and, in accordance with Article 25(2)(b) of the Convention, the States the States undertake to develop the possibilities of judicial remedies.150 The inexistence of effective domestic remedies places an individual in a state of defenselessness. 151 146 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No 228, para. 91. 147 Cf. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90; and Case of Masacres de Río Negro V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C. No. 250, para. 191. 148 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93; and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82. 149 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Massacres El Mozote and nearby places V. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No 252, para. 242.