and repair it. 165 In this sense, this Court does not evaluate the effectiveness of the remedies filed based on a possible resolution favorable to the victim ‘s interests. 166 172. At the time of the events, the National Council of the Judiciary’s decisions in matters of evaluations and ratifications of judges and prosecutors issued by the CNM in accordance with article 142 of the 1993 Constitution were not reviewable in court and article 154(3) of the aforementioned also established that said decisions could not be challenged. 167 In addition, Article 30 of the Law of the Council of the Judiciary, Law No. 26397, established that the decision adopted was not subject to any appeal. 168 Similarly, Article 2 of the Organic Law of the CNM, prohibited any kind of review or challenge of its decisions, as well as in the regulations for the Evaluation of Judges of the Judiciary and Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service (Resolutions No. 0432000 CNM and No. 241-2002-CNM), which, in Article 17, established that all of its decisions were not able to be challenged or reversed (supra para. 68, 70 and 77). 173. The State acknowledged in its reply that “it should be remembered that the CNM's decisions regarding the ratification of judges and prosecutors were conceived as unable to be challenged, precisely to provide the former CNM with the necessary independence to, based on the reports collected, take the decision to ratify judges and prosecutors or not, based on objective criteria of conduct and suitability and without external interference.” It added that although Article 142 of the 1993 Political Constitution was initially interpreted as indicating that neither the decisions of the National Board of Elections in electoral matters nor those of the CNM in matters of evaluation and ratification of Judges could be reviewed in court, the interpretation of said constitutional provision has been changing and for several years it has been possible to review the ratification processes to avoid arbitrary behavior by the members of the CNM. The State pointed out that the Constitutional Court, through Resolution of November 7, 2002 No. 2409-2002-AA/TC, established a series of criteria regarding effective judicial remedy, and determined that the pronouncements of the CNM can be reviewed in court. 174. Considering the foregoing, the regulatory framework in force in Peru at the time the CNM's non-ratification decisions were issued against the alleged victims prevented judicial review of evaluations and ratifications by judges and prosecutors, since these decisions could not be challenged administratively and could not be appealed in court, and subsequently, according to the State's argument, it was possible to challenge them through the writ of amparo, under certain conditions. 175. In this case, Messrs. Cuya Lavy and Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse filed writs of amparo against the CNM decisions that determined their non-ratification. 169 The Court will now refer to the writs of amparo filed by the three alleged victims. It should be remembered that, when evaluating the effectiveness of the remedies, the Court must observe whether the decisions 165 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, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 149. 166 Cfr. Cas Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 67, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 100. 167 Article 154. -The functions of the National Council of the Judiciary […], in paragraph 3 it was established, “[a]pply the sanction of dismissal to the judges of the Supreme Court and supreme prosecutors; and, ex officio or at the request of the Supreme Court or the Board of Supreme Prosecutors, respectively, to the judges and prosecutors of all instances. In the case of supreme judges and supreme prosecutors, the application of reprimand or suspension of up to one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days will also be possible, applying criteria of reasonableness and proportionality. The final resolution must be substantiated and with a prior hearing of the interested party. It cannot be contested." Political Constitution of Peru, enacted on December 29, 1993, article 154.3, supra. 168 In addition, Article 17 of the Regulations for Resolution No. 043-2000 and the Regulations for Resolution No. 241-2002 established that [against the result of the ratification vote, no reconsideration by the Counsellors. There is no appeal against it or its execution. Judicial review of the process or its results is not appropriate, as established by the Political Constitution. 169 Mr. Valenzuela filed a writ of amparo against the CNM resolution of non-ratification so that the agreement of the CNM plenary session by which the process was convened would be declared inapplicable (supra para. 89). 44