44. Lastly, it is necessary to call attention to the reference made to the majority opinion in the case of Casa Nina v. Peru.36 We should not lose sight of the fact that the considerations made in the instant case are very different from the analysis made in that judgment, because on that occasion, the IACtHR ruled on a dismissal “based on the needs of public service” of a provisional prosecutor and not on the sanction of dismissal in an administrative disciplinary proceeding. III. DUE PROCESS AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THE INSTANT CASE 45. As mentioned in the judgment,37 the analysis of the arguments presented by the Commission and Mr. Cordero Bernal’s representatives reveals that the dispute in this case relates to the effectiveness of the application for amparo against the decisions of the National Council of the Judiciary. 46. In this regard, the IACtHR found that the Peruvian Constitution established that the decisions of the National Council of the Judiciary could not be contested and that, at the time of the facts, the judges interpreted that the only admissible remedy was the application for amparo based on violations of due process; therefore, not for alleged violations of other fundamental rights. In this case, for example, Mr. Cordero Bernal argued the violation of the guarantee of irremovability, which was not analyzed.38 However, the majority opinion concluded that “the judges of the amparo procedure examined the decision adopted by the CNM and concluded that it was duly substantiated and that the right to due process had not been violated.”39 47. I disagree with that conclusion. We should recall that the Inter-American Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to ensure to everyone subject to their jurisdiction a simple and prompt remedy, that is rapid and effective against acts that violate their fundamental rights.40 On this basis, the IACtHR has indicated that, pursuant to Article 25 of the American Convention, it is possible to identify the State obligation to enact and to ensure the due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect everyone subject to their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that involve the determination of their rights and obligations.41 The right established in Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by attributing protection functions to the domestic law of the States Parties.42 Consequently, the State has the responsibility not only to design and enact Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 81. 36 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 102. 37 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 48. 38 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 103. 39 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C No. 228, para. 95, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations.. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 130. 40 41 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, and Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2020. Series C No. 401, para. 79. Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83, and Case of López et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 396, para. 209. 42