26 80. In this case, it should be emphasized that this norm implies that the judge or court responsible for hearing a case must, above all, be competent, in addition to independent and impartial.110 More specifically, the Court has indicated that “any person subject to a trial of any nature before an organ of the State must be guaranteed that this organ […] acts pursuant to the procedure established by law for hearing and deciding the case submitted to it.”111 81. In the instant case, the Court finds it unreasonable that the organs of administration of justice of a State Party to the American Convention subject a person to criminal proceedings and deprive him of liberty for more than two years without having determined, with certainty, their own competence as regards the relevant procedure established by domestic law. In addition, the failure to determine the competent court opportunely was aggravated by the fact that the decision of the Gonaïves Court of Appeal had still not been duly notified several months after it had been issued; and no satisfactory explanation has been provided in this respect. Until it has been notified, its content cannot be acted on, its useful effect is futile and abstract, a situation that causes or perpetuates an unjustified delay in justice. The Court understands that a person suspected of having committed a crime, if criminally prosecuted, has the right, in the terms of Article 8(1) of the Convention, to be brought promptly before a competent organ of justice or investigation in order both to substantiate the charges against him, if applicable, and to achieve the purposes of the administration of justice, particularly the determination of the truth. This is because the person accused is in a situation of uncertainty that makes it necessary to substantiate and decide his juridical situation as soon as possible, so as not to prolong indefinitely the effects of a criminal prosecution, bearing in mind also that, in the context of criminal proceedings, his personal liberty may be restricted. Added to this, the determination of the facts under investigation needs to be made possible and effective as well as the corresponding criminal responsibilities, if applicable, in view of the need to protect and guarantee the rights of other injured persons. 82. Mr. Neptune’s lack of access to a competent court has unduly prolonged this situation of uncertainty – normally resulting from criminal proceedings – and he has not been allowed to obtain a final ruling of a competent judge on the charges of which he is accused. In this regard, the Court has stated that any domestic law or measure that imposes costs or in any other way obstructs an individual’s access to the courts, and that is not warranted by what is reasonably needed for the administration of justice, should be considered contrary to Article 8(1) of the Convention.112 83. Closely related to the above, the right of access to justice recognizes that, from the outset, any person who is committed to trial must have the effective possibility of obtaining a final ruling, without undue delays resulting from the lack of diligence and care that the courts of justice must guarantee, as observed in the instant case.113 Otherwise, in light of the right to an effective recourse embodied in Article 25 of the Convention, it is evident that the person prosecuted cannot resort to the guarantees contained in Article 8 of the 110 Cf. Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Perú, Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 51, para. 130. 111 Cf. The Constitutional Court v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 35, para. 77; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 42, para. 140, and Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 37, para. 130. 112 Cf. Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 50. 113 Cf. mutatis mutandis, Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22 2005. Series C No. 118, para. 50.