opportunity to be heard, to hear evidence, to challenge magistrates, to bring actions and to file appeals, like any other magistrate who has been tried before the JEM [...].” B. Considerations of the Court 85. Although the Commission stated that the lack of suitable and effective remedies implied, in the specific case, a violation of judicial guarantees and the right to appeal the judgment, this Court will analyze the allegations only from the perspective of Article 25(1) of the Convention, in view of the previous decision (supra para. 77). This Court has pointed out, in relation to Article 25(1) of the Convention, that said norm contemplates the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, effective judicial remedies to human rights violations. 101 Such effectiveness implies that, in addition to the formal existence of remedies, they provide results or responses to violations of rights enshrined in the Convention, the Constitution, or the regulations.102 This implies that the remedy must be appropriate to address the violation and its application by the competent authority must be effective.103 Likewise, this Court has established that an effective judicial remedy means that the analysis by the competent authority of a judicial recourse cannot be reduced to a mere formality; instead, it must examine the reasons invoked by the applicant and make express statements regarding the same.104 The aforementioned does not imply that the effectiveness of a remedy is evaluated based on whether it produces a favorable outcome for the application.105 86. Likewise, in accordance with its most recent case law, the Court has considered that the resolution notifying the disciplinary sanction adopted, as well as the resolution notifying the initiation of the investigation and the charges, must establish the remedies to which the interested party is entitled, the deadline for filing them, and the authority having jurisdiction to hear them. This is because access to judicial guarantees requires that individuals whose rights may be affected fully understand the available remedies and how to take action. The Court understands that sanctioning matters are generally technical, and if the sanctioned person is not aware of the available remedies, their lack of knowledge can become a barrier to accessing the means of appeal provided in domestic legislation.106 87. From analyzing the arguments presented by the Commission and the representative, it is clear that the controversy in this case is related to the adequacy and effectiveness of the appeal for clarification and reversal, as well as the action of unconstitutionality. In effect, with respect to the rulings of the JEM, Article 21 paragraph (f) of Law 1084 states: "the final judgments, resolutions and orders issued by the Jury 101 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 116. 102 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights.) Advisory opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 116. 103 Cf. Advisory opinion OC-9/87, supra, para. 24, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 116. Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 108. 104 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 67, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 116. 105 106 Cf. Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, supra, para. 92. 27