given that he had previously been granted the conditional suspension of the sentence. 181. Regarding the amparo action filed for the violation of his political rights, the representatives recalled that this was granted by the Electoral Chamber of the Supreme Court, on November 25, 2009. As a result of this judgment, the National Electoral Council was ordered to enroll Mr. Tulio Álvarez Ramos in the electoral register. However, in Judgment 1063, of November 3, 2010, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the petition for review filed by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and revoked the restitution of his political rights. That decision violated his right to effective judicial protection, contemplated in Article 25 of the Convention. 182. The State argued that the action of amparo filed by Mr. Álvarez was upheld on November 25, 2009 by the Electoral Chamber of the Supreme Court. On that occasion, this Chamber concluded that the Professors’ Association of the Central University of Venezuela was not an organ or entity that formed part of the structure of the Venezuelan State, and therefore it should not deprive Mr. Tulio Álvarez of his rights to political participation and suffrage in the association’s electoral processes. Accordingly, the State argued that the Professors’ Association of the Central University of Venezuela included Mr. Álvarez in its electoral register, thereby allowing him to vote and be elected in the association’s electoral processes. As evidence of this, the Venezuelan State forwarded the 2017 Electoral Register of the Professors’ Association of the Central University of Venezuela, in which the name of the presumed victim appears. Thus, the State argued that Mr. Álvarez is fully eligible to vote and be elected in any elections organized by the aforementioned professional body. B. Considerations of the Court 183. The Inter-American Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights.169 Said effectiveness supposes that, in addition to the formal existence of remedies, such remedies must produce results or responses to the violations of rights embodied in the Convention, in the Constitution or in the laws.170 184. The Court has established that for a remedy to be effective, it is not enough for it to be established in the Constitution or by law, or that it should be formally admissible; it must also be truly appropriate to determine whether there has been a violation of human rights and to provide everything necessary to remedy it. Those remedies that are illusory, owing to the general conditions in the country or to the particular circumstances of a specific case, cannot be considered effective.171 Consequently, the State has a responsibility not only to design and and embody in legislation an effective remedy, but also to ensure the proper application of said remedy by the judicial authorities.172 185. In this case, on March 4, 2009, the Ninth Trial Court ordered the full release of Mr. Tulio Álvarez. This decision was based on his compliance with the probation period imposed by that court when it decided to substitute the penalty of imprisonment. Consequently, there Cf. Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007, Series C, No. 172, para. 177; and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, para. 101. 170 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C, No. 198, para. 69; and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela, para. 314. 171 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, para. 137; and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, para. 101. 172 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C, No. 63, para. 237; and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C, No. 333, para. 234. 169 36