83. Under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, States are required to provide effective legal remedies to victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated pursuant to the rules of due process of law.77 Likewise, the Court recalls that it is a basic principle, embodied in International Human Rights Law, that every State is internationally responsible for any action or omission committed by any of its powers or bodies in violation of internationally recognized rights.78 The Court has pointed out that the guarantee of an effective remedy “constitutes a basic pillar, not only of the American Convention, but of the Rule of Law in a democratic society under the terms of the Convention.”79 84. States have the responsibility to establish in law and to guarantee the proper application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process of law before the competent authorities, to protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or that imply the determination of their rights and obligations.80 85. Taking into account the facts which the Court considers have been established in the present case, in this chapter the Court will rule on the alleged violations in the following order: 1) the right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court, in relation to the duty to adopt domestic legal effects, and 2) the right protected in Article 8(4) of the Convention. Also, in the legal analysis of the right to appeal the judgment the Court will refer to the alleged violations of the right to defense, the right to be heard, the obligation to substantiate a decision, and the right to a simple and prompt recourse. 86. The Court will not rule on the alleged violations of Articles 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), 25(2)(a), and 25(2)(b) of the American Convention, included by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, given that representatives did not present legal arguments regarding these alleged violations, nor did they even mention the facts on which they were based. Furthermore, the Court will not rule on the alleged violation of Mr. Mohamed’s right to defense during the criminal proceeding against him,81 which was argued only by the representatives, given that they base their arguments on rules of criminal procedure that were not submitted in the body of evidence of this case. D) Right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court (Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention), in relation to the obligation to adopt domestic legal effects (Article 2 of the Convention) 87. The Court will determine whether Mr. Mohamed had the right to appeal the conviction, which requires the Court to rule on the scope of the right protected by Article 77 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Massacres of Río Negro V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C. No. 250, para. 191. 78 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 164, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 72. 79 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 59. 80 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits, para. 237, and Case of Furlan and Family V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012 Series C No. 246, para. 209. 81 According to the representatives there was a violation because Mr. Mohamed was convicted in a second instance proceeding in “a judgment [in which there was no] [previous] indictment,” which was a requirement at the time when the events of the present case occurred and it was necessary for a court to issue “a conviction.” Moreover, they argued that at that time, in Argentina, “the complaint […] was merely of an additional nature [to the prosecution’s charge]”. The representatives argued that "there was no legitimacy to a conviction without an indictment.” 27