32 recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 124. Article 1.1 of the American Convention stipulates: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 125. Article 2 of the American Convention provides: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 126. The Court has repeatedly said that Article 25.1 of the Convention requires States to offer, to all people under their jurisdiction, effective judicial recourse against actions that violate their basic rights. The existence of that guarantee “is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society, as defined by the Convention.” 111 127. Regarding the scope of the right to judicial protection, both the Commission and the Inter-American Court have repeatedly stated that it applies not only with respect to the rights set out in the Convention, but also to those recognized by the Constitution or in law. 112 The Court has also said that “for such a remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or by law or that it be formally recognized, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.” 113 As held by the Court’s constant jurisprudence, a remedy which proves illusory because of the general conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the particular circumstances of a given case, cannot be considered effective. 114 128. In connection with the relationship between the right enshrined in Article 25 of the Convention and the obligations set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, the Court has ruled that: Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation in Article 1.1 of the American Convention, in that it assigns duties of protection to the States Parties through their domestic legislation, from which it is clear that the State has the obligation to design and embody in legislation an 111 I/A Court H. R. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of November 3, 1997, Series C No. 34, para. 82; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 19, 2006, Series C No. 151, para. 131; and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 6, 2008, Series C No. 183, para. 78. 112 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 24, 2006, Series C No. 158, para. 122; Case of Claude Reyes et al.. Judgment of September 19, 2006, Series C No. 151, para. 128; and Yatama Case, Judgment of June 23, 2005, Series C No. 127, para. 167. See also: IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Union of Employees, Professionals, and Technicians of the Lima Water and Sewerage Service Company v. Peru, January 16, 2010, para. 57. 113 I/A Court H. R.C.f. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), para. 24; Case of the Five Pensioners v. Peru, Judgment of February 28, 2003, Series C No. 98, para. 136. 114 I/A Court H. R c.f. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), para. 24; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 145, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 26, 2006, Series C No. 154, para. 111.