58 the latter since 1993. The representatives add that the remedies filed, to ensure daily subsistence of the alleged victims through their traditional methods of hunting, fishing, and gathering, have been ineffective. 60. The State, in turn, basically argues that it has fulfilled its constitutional and legal obligations to ensure and facilitate to the members of the Community access to administrative mechanisms in the process of claiming their rights to communal landholding, but its administrative institutions have faced difficulties to effectively respond to the claim by the members of the Indigenous Community due to the complexity of the case. 61. that The Court has pointed out, in connection with Article 25 of the Convention, the inexistence of an effective recourse against the violation of the rights recognized by the Convention constitutes a transgression of the Convention by the State Party in which such a situation occurs. In that respect, it should be emphasized that, for such a recourse to exist, it is not enough that it is established in the Constitution or in the law or that it should be formally admissible, but it must be truly appropriate to establish whether there has been a violation of human rights and to provide everything necessary to remedy it .176 62. The effective remedies that the States must offer pursuant to Article 25 of the American Convention, must be substantiated according to the rules of due legal process (Article 8 of the Convention), all this set within the general obligation of the States themselves to guarantee free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention for all persons under their jurisdiction.177 In this regard, the Court has deemed that due legal process must be respected in administrative proceedings and in any other proceedings where the decision may affect individuals’ rights.178 63. As regards indigenous peoples, it is essential for the States to grant effective protection that takes into account their specificities, their economic and social characteristics, as well as their situation of special vulnerability, their customary law, values, and customs (supra para. 51). 64. In the instant case, the analysis regarding Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention must be approached from two angles: a) it is necessary to analyze whether or not there is an effective procedure to respond to the territorial claims of indigenous peoples with the characteristics that have been mentioned; and b) it is necessary to establish whether the criminal proceeding against the members of the Community, before the Trial Court for Criminal Matters and Correctional Affairs for Minors of the Judicial Circumscription of Concepción, respected the guarantees embodied in Article 8(2) of the American Convention. a) Existence of an effective procedure for indigenous land claims 176 See Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 113; Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 136, and Case of Cantoral Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 164. 177 See Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 76; Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 194, and Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 60. 178 See Case of Baena Ricardo. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 127.