33 Finally, the State argued that the Judge of the Court of First Instance in La Guaira was dismissed "for lack of competence and professional ability," for declining jurisdiction in obedience to a rule which had been repealed by the Supreme Court, and subsequently he "got the annulment" of this decision. 124. With respect to the allegations of the parties, the Court considers that, having already declared that Mr. Usón Ramirez was tried and convicted by courts lacking competence and impartiality (supra paras. 116 and 119), he stands in a proceeding, flawed from its beginning, which thus implies that Mr. Usón had no access to judicial guarantees, and as such, the Tribunal deems it unnecessary to refer to other alleged violations in relation to the guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the Convention. C) Right to an effective remedy (Article 25(1)) 125. The Commission alleged that the State violated Article 25.1 of the Convention, “when trying Mr. Usón Ramírez in a jurisdiction that was incompetent […]. This circumstance [according to the Commission] brought about the fact that all recourses submitted by him against the military decisions against him and affecting his rights were resolved by military tribunals which did not offer the guarantees of independence and impartiality, so the State violated the right to a simple and prompt recourse or to any other effective recourse before competent courts or tribunals. In fact, [according to the Commission], this situation was repeated in each of the instances where the military tribunals rejected the recourses submitted by the counsel for the defense, keeping their competence, instead of presenting the cause to the competent jurisdiction, that is, the ordinary criminal jurisdiction”. 126. The representatives alleged that “[b]eing subjected to the military jurisdiction, depriving him of an ordinary judge, [Mr. Usón Ramírez] was deprived of any possibility of having effective judicial recourses, exercised before independent and impartial tribunals, with the guarantees of the due process, and that could protect him against the violations of the rights mentioned herein.” 127. The State alleged that General Usón Ramírez “was guaranteed an effective judicial protection system.” According to the State, the Commission and the representatives “tried […] to make believe that since the pleadings of the [alleged] victim’s representatives were rejected in the domestic juridical order, then there was no effective and efficient recourse.” The State emphasized “that the judicial protection and guarantee does not involve the right to be right, but a fair and efficient trial.” 128. This Tribunal has established that the safeguard of the person vis-à-vis the arbitrary exercise of any public power is the main objective of the international protection of human rights.107 To that end, Article 25(1) of the Convention sets forth the obligation of the State Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, an effective judicial recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.108 In turn, these recourses shall be followed pursuant to the rules of the due process (Article 8(1)), all of which is under the general obligation, by the States, to guarantee free and full exercise of the rights set forth 107 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al.v. Panamá. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 78; Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 47, para. 183, and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 130. 108 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 91; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al.(“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 9, para. 69, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 110.