54 inter-American system (supra, para. 133).238 In this regard, the parties have had abundant possibilities of referring to the scope of the rights affected by the facts analyzed. 1. Access to justice to protect job security as a right recognized in the Constitution 173. Article 25 of the Convention indicates expressly that: 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; […] 174. This Court has declared that judicial protection, “is one of the basic pillars of the American Convention and of the rule of law in a democratic society,”239 and has indicated that “Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention also establish the right of access to justice, a peremptory norm of international law.”240 In addition, the principle of effective judicial protection requires that judicial proceedings are accessible to the parties, without any undue obstacles or delays, so that they may achieve their purpose promptly, simply and fully.241 Furthermore, the 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 an effective judicial remedy against acts that have violated their fundamental rights,242 which are recognized in either the Constitution, or the laws or the Convention.243 175. As already mentioned, both the 1979 and the 1993 Constitutions of Peru, and the labor laws at the time of the facts, explicitly recognized the right to job security244 (supra, para. 138). 176. In this regard, the Court’s case law has identified a close connection between the scope of the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. Thus, it has established that States have the obligation to design and legislate effective remedies for the comprehensive In particular, the Court underlines that, in the first communication he addressed to the Inter-American Commission of October 13, 1993, the petitioner stated, among other matters, that his “right to job security indicated in article 48 of the Constitution and articles 27 and 26 of the proposed new constitution” had been violated. Initial petition lodged before the IACHR (File of procedure before the IACHR, f. 439). 238 Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82. 239 Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 131. 240 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 106, and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 211. 241 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, footnote 23, para. 219, and Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, para. 148. 242 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No 104. para. 73, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Perú́, supra, para. 69. 243 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Constitution of Peru July 12, 1979. Article 48 “The State recognizes the right to job security. The employee may only be dismissed for just cause, indicated by law and duly proven.” Congress of the Republic of Peru. Constitution of Peru, December 29, 1993 Article 22. Work is a duty and a right. It is the basis of social well-being and a means for self-realization” and in article 27: “[t]he law accords the worker adequate protection against arbitrary dismissal.” Congress of the Republic of Peru Law No.24514. Article 2. This law protects workers in the private sector or in public companies subject to the private sector regime […].” 244