26 48. Before turning to the issue of the applicability of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, this Court must point out that at the time the judgment on preliminary objections was delivered, no reference was made to any alleged violations of articles of the American Declaration, as the alleged violations involved events that predated Argentina’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction (supra 25). Therefore, in this chapter the Court will only consider and apply the American Convention. A) PROCEDURAL ISSUES 49. The Inter-American Court has held that within the general obligations of States is a positive duty to guarantee the rights of all individuals within their jurisdiction. This includes the duty: to take all necessary measures to remove any impediments which might exist that would prevent individuals from enjoying the rights the Convention guarantees. Any state which tolerates circumstances or conditions that prevent individuals from having recourse to the legal remedies designed to protect their rights is consequently in violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention […]95. 50. Under Article 8(1) of the Convention: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. This provision of the Convention upholds the right of access to the courts. It follows from this provision that States shall not obstruct persons who turn to judges or the courts to have their rights determined or protected. Any domestic law or measure that imposes costs or in any other way obstructs individuals’ access to the courts and that is not warranted by what is reasonably needed for the administration of justice must be regarded as contrary to Article 8(1) of the Convention. 51. Article 25 of the Convention states the following: 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. 52. Article 25 of the Convention also upholds the right of access to the courts. When examining Article 25 of the Convention, the Court has written that it establishes the obligation of the States to offer, to all persons under their jurisdiction, effective legal remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. It also establishes that the right protected therein applies not only to rights included in the Convention, but also to those recognized by the Constitution or the law.96 95 Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, par. 151; Exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, par. 34. 96 Cf. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, par. 111; Constitutional Court Case, supra note 8, par. 89; and Judicial Guarantees in States of