-51127. The Court has affirmed that the effective recourse mentioned in Article 25 of the Convention must be processed in accordance with the rules of due process established in Article 8(1) thereof, in keeping with the general obligation of the States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights established in the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).99 To this end, the application for protection of rights filed before the Santiago Court of Appeal should have been processed respecting the guarantees embodied in Article 8(1) of the Convention. 128. Article 25(1) of the Convention has established the broad scope of the State’s obligation to offer to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an effective judicial recourse to contest acts that violate their fundamental rights. It also establishes that the guarantee embodied therein applies not only with regard to the rights contained in the Convention, but also those recognized by the Constitution and by law.100 129. Safeguarding the individual from the arbitrary exercise of public authority is the main purpose of the international protection of human rights.101 The inexistence of effective domestic recourses places the individual in a state of defenselessness.102 130. The inexistence of an effective recourse against violations of the rights established in the Convention constitutes a violation thereof by the State Party.103 States Parties to the Convention are obliged to establish the said effective recourse by law and ensure its due implementation. 131. For the State to comply with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, it is not enough that recourses exist formally; they must be effective104 in the terms of that article. The existence of this guarantee “constitutes one of the basic pillars not only of the American Convention on Human Rights, but also of the rule of law itself in a democratic society, according to the Convention.”105 The Court has stated repeatedly that this Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 2, para. 193; Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 72, para. 163; and Case of the Moiwana Community case. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 142. 99 100 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 86, para. 167; Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 52; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 111; and 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. 23. 101 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 93, para. 213; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 113; and Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 72, para. 183. 102 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 101, para. 113; Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 72, para. 183; Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para.92; and Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra note 100, para. 23. 103 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 86, para. 168; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; and Case of “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136. 104 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 2, para. 192; Baldeón García case, supra note 2, para. 144; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 93, para. 213. 105 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 2, para. 192; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 2, para. 144; and Case of López Álvarez, supra note 72, para. 138.