10 that for an effective remedy to exist, it is not enough that it be established by the Constitution or in legislation or that it be formally recognized, but rather it is required that it be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and that it provide a means to remedy the violation. Those remedies that, due to the general conditions of the country or even the particular circumstances of a given case, are illusory cannot be considered effective.38 32. The Inter-American Court has also noted that, under the terms of Article 25 of the American Convention, two specific State obligations can be identified. First, establish by law and ensure proper implementation of effective remedies before the competent authorities, which protect all persons within its jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or that determine the rights and obligations thereof. Second, guarantee the means to implement the respective decisions and final judgments issued by the competent authorities,39 so that the rights that are declared or recognized are effectively protected. 33. The right established in Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, as it attributes protective functions to the domestic law of the States Parties.40 In view of the aforementioned, the State has a responsibility not only to design and adopt into law an effective remedy, but also to guarantee the proper application of that remedy by its judicial authorities. 41 The process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling in the proper application of the ruling.42 Therefore, the effectiveness of judgments and judicial decisions depends on their implementation. Otherwise, the denial of the right is implied.43 This implies, in accordance with Article 25(2)(b)) of the American Convention, that States commit themselves to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy. 44 As a consequence of the aforementioned, the lack of effective domestic remedies renders a person in a state of defenseless.45 37 Para. 116 of the Judgment. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para.191, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et. al.) V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 228. 38 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 136; and Case of García and Family V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 199. Series C No. 63, para. 142. 39 Cf. Case of de the “Street Children”(Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237. 40 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83; and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 141. 41 Cf. Case of de the “Street Children”(Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237; and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community. V. Paraguay.Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 141. 42 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 104. 43 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 82; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No 228. para. 104. 44 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 78.