154. An analysis of the general context of the facts of this case, added to the specific dates and moments at which each of the said decisions was issued and, in particular, the content of Resolution No. 1 of the National Congress, allows the Court to deduce that the decision to invalidate the judgments that were favorable to the presumed victims was conditioned by the Legislature’s forceful pronouncement and express admonitions. 155. Therefore, despite the Constitutional Chamber’s rulings admitting the actions of unconstitutionality and, consequently, declaring the violation of the rights of Messrs. Ríos Ávalos and Fernández Gadea and ordering specific measures to redress the harm caused (supra paras. 44 and 45), the course of action taken by the National Congress and the Supreme Court of Justice rendered the intended judicial protection ineffective and, consequently, also the remedies filed to obtain this. 156. It should be added that, on September 2, 2019, the Constitutional Chamber delivered Judgment No. 737 deciding the appeals for clarification filed by the Prosecutor General and Mr. Ríos Ávalos with regard to Judgment No. 951 of December 30, 2009, and admitted the objection filed by the latter. Days later, Mr. Ríos Ávalos asked that the necessary arrangements be made to comply with the decision taken in the 2009 judgment. 159 On September 26, 2019, the Supreme Court of Justice responded to this requirement, and indicated that the parties had been notified of its decision.160 However, on October 11, that year, the Constitutional Chamber declared that the notifications were null and void.161 157. In this regard, this Court has considered that the purpose of legal proceedings should be materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial decision by the appropriate application of that decision. Therefore, the effectiveness of a judgment depends on its execution.162 A judgment that is res judicata grants certainty concerning the right or dispute debated in the particular case; consequently, one of its effects is the need for or the enforceability of its execution.163 The contrary would be tantamount to the very denial of the right involved.164 158. The Court has also affirmed that those remedies that are illusory, owing to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances of a case, cannot be considered effective. This may occur, for example, when their futility has been demonstrated in the practice because the Judiciary lacks the necessary independence to decide impartially, because the means to execute its decisions are absent, or due to any other situation that Cf. Brief of September 19, 2019, submitted by the petitioner, included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 11749 to 11751). 160 Cf. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 26, 2019, included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 11749 to 11751). 161 Cf. Resolution A.I.N. No. 1932 of October 11, 2019, issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 11769 and 11770). 162 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 242. 163 Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 167, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 242. 164 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction, supra, para. 82, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 242. 159 40