this, one organization pointed out that the Council’s membership was composed of party supporters and that the ruling party prevailed in the technical and administrative structure of the electoral branch of government, which is cause for great concern, because it was the same Council that presided over the municipal elections of 2008 for which there was evidence of electoral fraud for the benefit of the ruling party. 80. The Commission deems that the general context of concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch of government, as confirmed by the IACHR at the time of the 2011 elections, including the absence of independence of the judicial branch and the Supreme Electoral Council in charge of overseeing the entire process, as well as the irregularities indicated in the previous paragraph, which brought advantages as a result of the use of additional public resources and media for President Ortega’s campaign, greater campaigning for his benefit in the media, and the shutting of airtime on state channels for the other political parties, make it possible to confirm that the incumbent president participated in the process on the basis an advantageous or superior position. This undermined the alleged victim’s right to participate in said process on equal terms and without any unlawful advantage compared to other candidates. 81. Furthermore the Commission cannot help noting that breaching the right to participate on equal terms in an electoral contest may undermine not only the individual rights of the person concerned but also the collective dimension of political rights, that is, the will of the voters, through universal suffrage, because said breach can prevent the ground rules of democracy from being observed 62 by creating undue advantages for certain candidates over the remaining participants who present their candidacy in a popular election. 82. In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the state is responsible for violating the right to equal access to public service in his country, as provided for in Article 23.1(c) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Fabio Gadea Mantilla. 83. As for the allegations of violation of the principle of equality and non-discrimination under Article 24 of the American Convention filed by the alleged victim, the IACHR considers that the analysis of said claim is included in the determinations regarding Article 23.1(c) of the American Convention, which was referred to above. B. The right to judicial protection 63 84. The IACHR recalls that the state has the general obligation of providing effective judicial remedies to persons alleging to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8.1). For an effective recourse to exist, it is not enough that it is established in the law, it must be truly appropriate to establish whether or not there has been a human rights violation and to promote what is needed to remedy it. 64 85. The Commission recalls that, according to the facts of the instant case, on March 9, 2011 the alleged victim registered his candidacy with the Supreme Electoral Council for the office of President and, on April 6, 2011, said body published the final list of candidates on which both the alleged victim and President Ortega appeared. Because the alleged victim and other candidates deemed that President Ortega’s registration was unlawful, they filed an appeal challenging said registration with the Supreme Electoral Court, but the appeal was dismissed on April 4, 2011. The alleged victim was unable to file a remedy to secure a judicial review of said 62 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom, Grand Chamber, October 6, 2005, para. 62; see also Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter; see also IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights in Peru, 2000. 63 Article 25.1 of the American Convention provides that 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. 64 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 125; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; I/A Court H.R. Case of "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136.