District of Guayas issued an order through which convened the parties for September 20 to "reinstate the hearing" on appeal that had been developed and suspended on September 16 and initially set for September 22176. The ruling of September 17 was notified on September 19. The IACHR observes that the notification was made one day previous to the continuation of the hearing. According to the petitioners, "according to the procedural law [...] all the orders can be subject to remedies within a term of 72 hours, which means that they cannot be executed until after this time, thus an order stating the date for a procedure, must be notified to the parties at least 78 hours before, so that the parties can exercise the right to appeal it ". 159. In a communication by the State to the IACHR, by Note 10168 dated April 13, 2017, the State representatives disputed the petitioners' statement in the brief of February 27, 2017, regarding the fact that the State would have affirmed that the ruling would not have been enforceable. In this context, it states, "the petitioners fail to indicate that it is not an affirmation of the State, but a reference to the allegation made in the brief of September 19, 2011, of Mr. Emilio Palacio." 160. The State indicates that the hearing was originally scheduled for August 25, 2011 and, after being postponed three times, was set for September 20, so "the [petitioners] had sufficient time to present their defense to the appeal hearing, since it had been planned to be held a month earlier." It is demonstrated, however, that the court acted irregularly by issuing a ruling on a non-business day and notifying it one day prior to the appeal hearing. Although the initial hearing had been scheduled for August 25, the definitive procedural act of scheduling was the ruling of September 17 and its notification one day in advance. The IACHR observes that the State did not invalidate the allegation asserted by the petitioners with respect to the possibility of executing an order that is not final. In this context, the parties to the process had the legitimate expectation of holding the hearing for September 22, so the sudden rescheduling generated a state of defenselessness and violated the right to defense. 161. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the State did not guarantee the right of defense enshrined in Article 8.2c and 8.2f to the detriment of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lappenti, Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga, and César Enrique Pérez Barriga. E. Right to Judicial Protection (article 25) 177 162. The Commission observes that the remedies filed by the alleged victims after the first instance judgment that condemned Emilio Palacio Urrutia and the executives of El Universo, even though they were filed on different times, were not effective in the context in the context of lack of guarantees of independence of the judiciary and interpretations contrary to the inter-American standards of the provisions of the American Convention. Despite that the Court has mentioned that the "fact that the remedies filed were not decided in a manner favorable to the interests of the complainant, does not imply that the alleged victim did not have access to an effective remedy to protect their rights”178. Also, in accordance with the doctrine of this court, the effectiveness of a remedy is not verified with its sole formal existence, but that it "must [give] a timely and exhaustive response according to its purpose, that is, to determine the responsibilities and to repair the victims in their case"179, and the State must "ensure the proper application of effective remedies filed before the competent authorities with the purpose of protecting all persons under its jurisdiction against acts that violate and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 181; I/A Court H.R., Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 228. 176 Annex 38. Nullity and Appeal Hearing Certificate. Annex No. 56 of the Initial Petition presented to the IACHR on October 24, 2011. 177 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. I/A Court H.R., Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 112. 178 179I/A Court H.R., Case of the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318, para. 395. 34