similar factual situation to the other notaries in Guatemala who, being domiciled in Guatemalan territory, had the rootedness required for the exercise of the notarial public function. 76. Consequently, this Court finds that the State did not violate the right to equality before the law recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Steven Edward Hendrix. B.4. Rights to judicial protection, nationality, work, and property95 77. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention, the Court recalls that the right to judicial protection entails the obligation to guarantee to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the State an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights.96 This effectiveness supposes that, in addition to the formal existence of the remedies, these lead to results or responses to the violations of the rights established in the Convention, the Constitution, or the laws.97 This means that the remedy must be appropriate to address the violation and that its application by the competent authority is effective.98 The effectiveness of the judicial remedy means that the analysis by the competent authority cannot be reduced to a mere formality; rather, it is necessary to examine the reasons cited by the plaintiff and make an express ruling on them.99 This Court does not evaluate the effectiveness of the remedies filed based on the possibility of a decision that favors the victim’s interests.100 78. In the instant case, the Court notes that, in its judgment, the Guatemalan Constitutional Court analyzed the arguments submitted by the alleged victim, and even annulled the appealed administrative and judicial decisions that failed to decide the problem related to the requirement of Guatemalan nationality to exercise the notarial profession.101 Thus, the Constitutional Court moved away from the literal text of article 2(1) of the Notarial Code and made an interpretation in light of article 146 of the Constitution, establishing that both Guatemalans by birth and naturalized Guatemalans could exercise the notarial profession (supra para. 34). Therefore, even though the judgment that decided the application for amparo did not accept all of Mr. Hendrix’s claims, this Court finds that Mr. Hendrix did have access to an effective judicial remedy. Consequently, the Court finds that the State did not violate the right to judicial protection established in Article 25(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Steven Edward Hendrix. 79. Based on the decision taken in section B.2. regarding the principle of equality and non-discrimination, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on the alleged 95 Articles 25(1), 20, 26 and 21 of the American Convention. 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 Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 170. 96 97 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of Benites Cabrera et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 4, 2022. Series C No. 465, para. 90. 98 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra, para. 24, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2022. Series C No. 464, para. 116. Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2022. Series C No. 463, para.108. 99 100 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 67, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 171. In this judgment, it ordered the Lawyers’ Association and the Assembly of Presidents of Professional Associations to issue a new resolution containing the authorization to exercise the notarial profession, conditional on compliance with the necessary requirements. Cf. Judgment of April 21, 2004 issued by the Constitutional Court, supra. 101 24