B. Considerations of the Court 134. The Court has held that Article 25(1) of the Convention obligates the States Parties to guarantee to all persons under their jurisdiction protection against acts that violate their fundamental rights.148 The Court has pointed out that, under the terms of Article 25, the State has two specific obligations. The first, to embody in their legislation and to ensure the due application of effective recourses before the competent authorities that protect all persons within its jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of their rights and obligations. The second, to guarantee effective mechanisms to enforce the definitive decisions and judgments issued by those competent authorities so that the declared or recognized rights are effectively protected.149 The right established in Article 25 is closely related to the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention in that it assigns functions of protection to the States Parties through their domestic law. The State, therefore, has the responsibility not only to design and enact into law effective recourses, but also to ensure the due application of such recourses by the judicial authorities.150 135. With specific reference to the effectiveness of the recourse, the Court has stated that the protection granted by the article is the real possibility of access to a judicial remedy so that the competent authority, with authority to issue a binding decision, determines whether there has been a violation of a right claimed by the person filing the action. In the event that a violation has been found, the remedy must be able to restore to the person the enjoyment of his or her right and to redress it.151 This does not imply that the effectiveness of the recourse should be evaluated on whether it produces a result favorable to the complainant.152 Those recourses that, because of the general conditions in the country or even due to the particular circumstances of a given case, are illusory cannot be considered effective.153 This may occur, for example, when their lack of effectiveness has been demonstrated in practice due to a lack of means to implement decisions or for any other situation that results in the denial of justice. Thus, the process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling through the proper application of that ruling.154 136. As to the requirements for the appropriateness of a judicial complaint, the Court has stated that for reasons of legal security, for the proper and functional administration of justice and the effective protection of the rights of the individual, States may and should establish Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91 and Case of Rico v. Argentina, para. 88. 148 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 79 and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 123. 149 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83, 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 Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 234. 150 Cf. Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 383, para. 88, Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, para. 24; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 100 and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 261. 151 152 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, para. 67 and Case of Rico v. Argentina, para. 88. Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 7, para. 137 and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, para. 184. 153 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 58; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73 and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 101. 154 27