79. With respect to the action of unconstitutionality filed by the alleged victim against the JEM ruling, the Commission noted that, although there is no record that the judges who participated in the JEM were signatories, it is problematic that this appeal was resolved by the Plenary of the Supreme Court, which is also home to two members of the JEM. It also considered that the action of unconstitutionality "is a remedy that in principle does not allow a comprehensive review or examination of both factual or evidentiary aspects in relation to the decision to dismiss the alleged victim, limiting the scope of its jurisdiction to issues of due process, without in any case being a remedy that would have been effective to enable the protection of the rights of the alleged victim." 80. Thus, the Commission considered that the alleged victim did not have a remedy that would allow for a comprehensive review to challenge the decision to dismiss him, nor an effective judicial remedy to achieve the protection of the rights he considered to have been violated. Therefore, it concluded that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Nissen Pessolani. 81. The representative argued that appeals for clarification and reversal provided for by Article 33 of Law No. 1084 are resolved by the Jury itself, so it does not respond to the right to appeal before a Judge or Superior Court. It also argued that the action of unconstitutionality provided for by the same article "was neither sufficient nor effective to reverse the serious defects of the procedure, since it did not allow for a comprehensive review of the ruling [...].” He added that the Members of the Court, when analyzing the action, did not realize that during the trial process "there were very serious violations of the defendant's constitutional guarantees," which demonstrates the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of the unconstitutionality action in this case as a remedy to obtain a comprehensive review of the jury's decision. 82. The State claimed that the alleged victim filed an appeal for clarification against the final judgment of the JEM, which was studied and resolved on April 22, 2003. In view of the dissatisfaction with the content of the judgment, it availed itself of his right to file an action of unconstitutionality against it, which was extended against the clarifying judgment. Therefore, it considered that the alleged victim did have the right to appeal the JEM's judgment. 83. Regarding the action of unconstitutionality, he clarified that the ministers of the Court who have ruled in the JEM do not participate in the judgment of the actions of unconstitutionality in which these resolutions are challenged. He also emphasized that the Supreme Court's judgment "addressed all the grievances expressed by Mr. Nissen Pessolani against the JEM's judgment and its clarification, having studied in detail whether said judgments were in accordance with the principle of consistency and other constitutional principles, and that these resolutions were indeed in accordance with the National Constitution, Article 17 of which reproduces the rights and guarantees of due process contained in the [American Convention].” 84. Regarding the right to an effective judicial remedy and the right to defense, the State considered that the alleged victim, in the framework of the application filed against him, had procedural remedies available and made use of them in the exercise of his right to defense. Thus, Mr. Nissen Pessolani filed an appeal for reversal, a motion for nullity, a complaint for the alleged crime of non-authentic document and a motion for recusal. Likewise, he indicated that during the process, Mr. Nissen Pessolani "was given the 26