of her nationality and the court decisions that had confirmed it, and to present the appropriate appeals, arguments, and defense, which received adequate answers. B. Considerations of the Court 108. With regard to Article 25(1) of the Convention, the Court has pointed out that under this provision requires the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 134 This presupposes that, in addition to the formal existence of such remedies, they must ensure results or responses to violations of the rights established in the Convention, the Constitution or the laws. 135 This means that the remedy must be suitable for combating the violation, and its application by the competent authority must be effective. 136 Likewise, this Court has established that an effective judicial remedy means that the analysis by the competent authority of a judicial recourse can not be reduced to a mere formality, instead it must examine the reasons invoked by the claimant and make express statements regarding the same. 137 This does not imply that the effectiveness of the recourse should be evaluated on whether it produces a result favorable to the complainant. 138 109. In the instant case, the Court recalls that it has already analyzed the effects of the impossibility of submitting Resolution 1088 to a review before a competent authority, in light of the obligations of the State established in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention (supra para. 73). The Court recalls that, although the failure to notify the alleged victims of the existence of Resolution 1088 prevented them from having recourse to a competent authority, including an appeal to the courts under Article 25 of the Convention, Resolution 1088 never had any impact that materially affected the rights of the alleged victims. Moreover, since it was revoked, the rights violations produced by its existence ceased, and reparation was made. The Court also recalls that the fact that the alleged victims did not take part in the proceedings meant that it was not possible to know the scope of the violations of their rights due to the State’s omissions in the proceedings and the issuance of Resolution 1088 (supra para. 81). Therefore, although it was impossible to lodge an appeal against the issuance of Resolution 1088, for the same reasons as mentioned above (supra paras. 80 to 84), and in application of the principle of complementarity, the Court holds that the State is not responsible for violating the right to judicial protection. 110. Moreover, the Court recalls that on November 2, 1994, Ms. Habbal filed a joint remedy of appeal and appeal for the declaration of nullity before the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza against the judgment delivered by the Acting Federal Judge on October 27, 1994. In her appeal, Ms. Habbal argued that Resolution 1088 constituted an arbitrary act that violated 134 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Pávez Pávez v. Chile, supra, para. 155. Cf. Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of Pávez Pávez v. Chile, supra, para. 155. 135 136 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra, para. 24, and Case of Pávez Pávez v. Chile, supra, para. 155. Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96, and Case of Pávez Pávez v. Chile, supra, para. 155. 137 138 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 67, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2019. Series C No. 391, para. 135. 36