18 59. In the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, an increasing development of the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention can be observed. It is also possible to note that the independent analysis of this provision of the American Convention forms part of a jurisprudential era in which the Court has attempted to be much more specific in describing the content of each of the rights and clauses that are framed within Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. With this, the jurisprudence which originally encompassed the multiple and complex rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on the general notion of the right of “access to justice sensu lato” has been enriched. In this manner, the Inter-American Court has increasingly delineated with more precision the fact that each of the rights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning and scope.92 60. As has already been mentioned, Article 25 of the Convention guarantees the existence of a simple, prompt, and effective remedy before a judge or competent tribunal. 93 Owing to this, the State Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25),94 remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)),95 all within the general obligation of those same States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the American Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).96 The Inter-American Court has considered that the meaning of the protection granted by Article 25 of the Convention is the real possibility of access to a judicial remedy so that the competent authority, with jurisdiction to issue a binding decision, determines whether there has been a violation of a right claimed by the person filing the action, and that the remedy is useful to restitute to the interested party the enjoyment of his right and to repair it, if it finds there has been a violation.97 61. On another note, Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention refers to an essential guarantee that must be respected as part of due process of law, so that a party may turn to a different or higher court for revision of a judgment that was unfavorable to that party’s interests.98 For a true review of the judgment, in the sense required by the Convention, the higher court must have the jurisdictional authority to take up the particular case in 92 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 171. 93 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No 228. para. 91. 94 Cf. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90; and Case of Massacres de Río Negro V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C. No. 250, para. 191. 95 Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93; and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82. 96 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; and Case of Massacres El Mozote and nearby places V. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No 252, para. 242. 97 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 100. 98 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158.