36 115. In the instant chapter, the Court will determine if the June 12, 2003 Interlocutory Resolution of the High Court of Justice, in which it ruled on a number of interlocutory objections raised by the representatives of the alleged victim regarding its jurisdiction, constituted an autonomous violation of the judicial protection contemplated in Article 25 of the Convention, in accordance with the case law of this Court. 116. In this sense, the Inter-American Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights.118 In addition to the formal existence of remedies, such effectiveness supposes that these provide results or responses to the violations of rights provided for in either the Convention, Constitution, or by law. 119 Moreover, the Court has established that for a remedy to be effective, it is not sufficient that it be established by the Constitution or by law, or that it be formally admissible; rather, it requires that it be truly appropriate to determine whether a human rights violation has been committed and ensure what is necessary to provide redress. Remedies that, owing to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances of a given case, result illusory, and cannot be considered effective.120 Based on the foregoing, the State has an obligation to not only draft and enact an effective remedy, but to also ensure the due application of this remedy by its judicial authorities.121 117. In the present case, during the initial phase of the trial before the High Court of Justice, the representatives of Mr. Alibux launched five interlocutory objections challenging its jurisdiction to continue hearing the criminal case brought against him (supra para. 45). In this regard, two of the objections were related to the constitutionality and conformity with the Convention of Article 140 of the Constitution and the IPOHA, to wit: i) that Article 140 of the Constitution and the IPOHA were inconsistent with Article 14(5) of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention for creating a proceeding in a sole instance before the High Court of Justice; and ii) that the indictment by the Prosecutor General should be declared inadmissible for retroactively applying the IPOHA, contrary to Article 131 of the Constitution. 118. In relation to the two objections described above, by Order dated June 12, 2003 (supra para. 46), the High Court of Justice ruled that: i) despite having binding effects on the State, the provisions of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights had no direct legal effect, since a domestic court could not establish processes of appeal that are not recognized by the law, and therefore, had to abide by the terms set forth in Article 140 of the Constitution; and ii) that the IPOHA did not contain any stipulations related to the criminalization of behavior, but rather, consisted of a regulatory mechanism to implement a constitutional provision of a procedural nature and, thus, there would have been no violation of the principle of legality. 118 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of the Displaced Afrodescendant Communities of the Cuenca of the Río Cacarica (Operation Génesis) V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, paras. 404 and 405. 119 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 191, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.), supra, para. 228. 120 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 93, 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 the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.), supra, para. 228. 121 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.), supra, para. 229.