regulatory modifications established that the resolutions referring to the ratification of magistrates could be subject to jurisdictional review through an amparo process, (c) effectiveness of the process of amparo against the decisions of the former CNM: the process of amparo against decisions of the CNM, proceeds when these affect the constitutional rights of the judges and prosecutors evaluated. 160 The State concluded that it is possible to use the amparo processes as an effective mechanism to achieve reinstatement, in the event that the evaluation and ratification processes violate due process. And these mechanisms were accessible in the case of the alleged victims, and (d) origin of administrative remedies against decisions of the former CNM: the State concluded that there is a remedy allowing for the original decisions to be reviewable by judges and prosecutors, through of an administrative appeal, and this constitutes a way of guaranteeing the right to challenge, which is not exactly the same as the right of second appeal, although they are related. B. Considerations of the Court 170. This Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, a simple, quick and effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 161 Taking this into account, the Court has indicated that, under the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific obligations of the State. The first, to establish normatively and ensure the due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect all persons under their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that entail the determination of their rights and obligations. The second is to guarantee the means to execute the respective decisions and final judgments issued by said competent authorities, in such a way that the declared or recognized rights are effectively protected. 162 The right established in Article 25 is closely linked with the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by attributing protection functions to the domestic law of the States Parties. 163 In view of the foregoing, the State has the responsibility not only to design and establish an effective remedy, but also to ensure the proper application of said remedy by its judicial authorities 164. 171. With specific regard to the effectiveness of the remedy, this Court has established that the meaning of the protection of the article is the real possibility of accessing a judicial remedy, for a competent authority capable of issuing a binding decision to determine whether or not there has been a violation of any right that the person claiming considers to have and that, if a violation is found, the remedy will be useful to restore the interested party to the enjoyment of their right 160 The State indicated that it should “bear in mind that the Constitutional Court of Peru has interpreted that it is possible to file –and consider as well-founded- a writ of amparo against the National Council of the Judiciary for a process of ratifying magistrates. This can happen for various reasons, such as, for example, if said ratification was carried out without respecting the term established by the Constitution”; as well as when it has not been substantiated, when due process was not respected, when the magistrate was not granted a prior hearing. Next, the State referred to two rulings in which the amparo process constituted an effective remedy for the protection of fundamental rights and guarantees of due process, within the framework of an evaluation and ratification procedure. Resolution No. 1141-2005-CNM, of November 22, 2005, through which, by virtue of the Judgment issued in the processing of File No. 40073-2003 (Amparo), it was decided to reinstate Mr. Justino Jesús Gallegos Zanabria to the position of Combined Judge of El Collao, Ilave, of the Judicial District of Puno. It also mentioned Resolution No. 1148-2005-CNM, of November 30, 2005, in which, by virtue of the Judgment issued in the proceedings of File No. 55908-2003 (Title Judge of the First Combined Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of Puno, of November 18, 2005, it decided to reinstate Mr. Daniel Antonio Cerna Bazán to the position of Supreme Criminal Prosecutor of La Libertad. 161 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C No. 228, para. 95, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 145. 162 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 237, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 148. 163 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 116. 164 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 237, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 116. 43