reviewed by a higher body. Accordingly, the reasoning of a decision and of certain administrative acts allows the facts, reasons and laws on which the authority based its decision to be known, in order to rule out any indication of arbitrariness. 175 155. With regard to Article 25(1) of the Convention, the Court has pointed out that this provision requires the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 176 This presupposes that, in addition to the formal existence of such remedies, they must ensure results or responses to violations of the rights established in the Convention, the Constitution or the laws. The Court has stated that for a remedy to exist it is not sufficient that it be formally established; rather, it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress. This does not mean that the effectiveness of a remedy is assessed based on whether it produces a favorable result for the plaintiff. 177 156. Furthermore, the Court has repeatedly indicated that the different State authorities are obliged to exercise an ex officio “conventionality control” between the domestic norms and practices and the American Convention on Human Rights, within the framework of their respective competences and the corresponding procedural rules. In this task, the domestic authorities must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation made of it by the Inter-American Court, which is the final interpreter of the Convention. 178 157. With specific reference to the effectiveness of the remedy, the Court has held that the meaning of the protection granted by Article 25 of the Convention is the real possibility of access to a judicial remedy so that a competent authority with jurisdiction to issue a binding decision may determine whether or not there has been a violation of a right claimed by the person filing the action. Likewise, if a violation is found, the remedy must be useful to restore to the interested party the enjoyment of his right and repair it. 179 Remedies which, because of the general conditions in the country, or even the particular circumstances of a given case, are illusory, cannot be considered effective. 180 This may occur, for example, when their uselessness has been demonstrated in practice, because the judiciary lacks the means to enforce its judgments or because of any other situation that constitutes a denial of justice. 181 158. As mentioned previously, in this case Sandra Pavez Pavez challenged the Vicariate’s decision regarding her certificate of suitability through an appeal for protection against the same entity. Both the Court of Appeals of San Miguel and the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed her appeal stating that decisions by the authorities of the religious communities could not be subject to external 175 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 122, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 150. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, para. 91, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 77. 176 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 67, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 48. 177 178 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 139. 179 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, supra, 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. 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 Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 158. 180 181 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. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, Merits and reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 130. 40