-24exercise.135 On the other hand, the promulgation of norms and the development of practices
conducive to effective observance of those guarantees.136
97. The violations of the Convention already determined in this chapter originated in the
application of the general criteria established by the Constitutional Division in its ruling of
November 4, 1997, on the possibilities of dismissal of TSE judges. In particular, the ruling
established that, notwithstanding the absence of a law, it could be interpreted that the Legislative
Assembly was the competent body to dismiss judges, while at the same time it broadened the
grounds for dismissal of TSE judges to include others not established as such by law.137 The
application of these criteria developed by the Constitutional Division constitutes a practice contrary
to the American Convention.
98. The Court notes that by virtue of Article 2 of the Convention, the State was obliged to
suppress practices of any nature that entail a violation of the guarantees provided for in the
Convention. Therefore, there was an omission by the State in not taking measures to prevent the
application of these criteria produced by the Constitutional Division, and thus ensure that TSE
judges were not dismissed for reasons not established in the legislation nor through judicial
processes before incompetent bodies and without the existence of a previously established
procedure. This omission led to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention and affected the legal
certainty and rights of the alleged victim at the time his dismissal was determined.
B.2.f Conclusion regarding the dismissal of Mr. Colindres Schonenberg
99. Based on all of the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that Salvadoran law did
not provide for the dismissal of TSE judges except in cases in which they committed a crime. The
procedure to which the alleged victim was subjected does not fall within this assumption, therefore
it was not legally established and there was no competent body to decide on his dismissal.
100. Consequently, the State violated Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1),
2, and 23(1)(c) thereof, to the detriment of Eduardo Benjamín Colindres Schonenberg.
B.3 Right to judicial protection
101. This Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention contemplates the obligation of
the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, the right to simple and
prompt recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his
fundamental rights.138 Regarding the effectiveness of the remedy, the Court has established that
for such an effective remedy to exist, it is not enough that it be provided for by the Constitution
or the law or that it be formally admissible, but rather that it be truly suitable to establish whether
a human rights violation has been incurred and provide what is necessary to remedy it. Those
remedies that, due to the general conditions of the country or even due to the particular
circumstances of a given case, are illusory, cannot be considered effective.139 This can occur, for
Cf. Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment
of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 113, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits,
Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 213.
136
Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series
C No. 52, para. 207, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs.
Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 213.
137
Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Division of November 4, 1997 (evidence file, folios 365 and 366).
138
Case Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 05,
2011, Series C No. 228, para. 95, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations
and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 245.
139
Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 06, 2001. Series C
No. 7, para. 137, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections,
Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 228.
135