-26been added to the file, and that he had not been given the opportunity to defend himself with respect to the brief of July 2, 1997, presented by deputies of the PDC.150 107. On November 5, 1999, the Constitutional Division declared the second amparo application to be inadmissible.151 The Constitutional Division stated that: [F]rom the argumentation of the plaintiff, only a matter of mere legality emerges, lacking a constitutional basis, observing circumstances that affect the valid configuration of the claim discussed in this proceeding. Such circumstances are the verification that the factual basis of the claim is based on a simple disagreement with the procedure followed by the Legislative Assembly and with the content of the resolution through which he was removed from office, since both the underlying arguments of the same – even when they refer to legal categories protected by the amparo – such as the alleged concepts of violation expressed, are not specific to the matter of amparo, since the Chamber is not an instance to review the criteria expressed by the Legislative Assembly in the Legislative Decree [that dismisses him], nor the material assessments or procedural actions in direct application of art. 11 of the Constitution.152 108. The Court notes that the Constitutional Division did not conduct an analysis of the alleged violations of due process in the dismissal proceeding. On the contrary, it indicated that “it is not an instance to review […the] procedural actions in direct application of art. 11 of the Constitution,” which stipulates the right to a hearing.153 109. In relation to the foregoing, the Court reiterates that the States have the duty to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. This implies that the judicial remedy must be suitable to combat the violation, so the competent authority must examine the reasons invoked by the plaintiff and rule on them.154 In this regard, the Court has indicated that the analysis that the competent authority makes of a judicial appeal – which contests constitutional rights such as the right to a hearing in this case – cannot be reduced to a mere formality and omit arguments submitted by the parties, because it must examine their reasons and rule on them pursuant to the standards established by the American Convention.155 In the instant case, this Court notes that the Constitutional Division did not carry out an analysis of the alleged violations of due process, since it considered that it is not an instance to review the criteria of the Legislative Assembly regarding the procedural actions in direct application of the Constitution. 110. The Court considers that the Constitutional Division was obliged to carry out an adequate judicial review of the facts claimed as violations by the alleged victim, which implied examining the allegations and arguments submitted to its knowledge regarding the dismissal procedure carried out by the Legislative Assembly. This analysis could not be limited to examining whether the Legislative Assembly had taken any measure to guarantee the right to a hearing, such as the creation of the Special Commission; rather it should cover whether said right was effectively guaranteed. This Court finds that by not conducting an analysis of whether the constitutional and conventional rights at stake were violated, the Constitutional Division disassociated the substantive right from the procedural right, thus preventing the analysis of the main subject matter of the dispute. In this sense, the Court concludes that the lack of sufficient judicial review Cf. Amparo application of July 27, 1999 (evidence file, folios 554 to 557). Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Division of November 5, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1586). 152 Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Division of November 5, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1585). 153 Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Division of November 5, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1585). 154 Cf. Case of Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 177. 155 Cf. Case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 184, and Case of Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 177. 150 151