-11(judgment of July 5, 2004, para. 193), Tibi v. Ecuador (judgment of September 7, 2004, para. 131), the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (judgment of March 1, 2005, para. 75), Yatama v. Nicaragua (judgment of June 23, 2005, para. 169), Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador (judgment of June 24, 2005, para. 93), and Palamara Iribarne v. Chile (judgment of November 22, 2005, para. 184). VI. The indivisibility of access to justice (the right to an effective recourse) and the guarantees of due process of law (Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention) 28. On the day the Inter-American Court adopted the judgment on merits in the Castillo Páez case (November 3, 1997) - the starting point of this lucid consistent case law of the Court - I experienced the satisfaction of knowing that significant progress had been made in the Court’s case law, which advanced to place the right to an effective recourse in the prominent position that corresponds to it, as an expression of the right of access to justic, lato sensu, understood as the right to the availability of justice, thus unavoidably encompassing the guarantees of due process of law, and authentic execution of judgment. How, then, can we fail to relate Article 25 to Article 8 of the Convention? After all, how could the guarantees of due process be effective (Article 8) if the individual did not have the right to an effective recourse (Article 25)? And how could the latter be effective without the guarantee of due process of law? 29. The fact is that they complement and complete each other within the legal framework of the rule of law in a democratic society. This is the sound interpretation of these two treaty-based provisions. Also, on the day the Court adopted the judgment on merits in the tragic Castillo Páez case, I was gratified to see that this advance in the Court’s case law had liberated Article 25 of the American Convention - in the tradition of the most lucid Latin American juridical though26 - from the vicissitudes experienced by the corresponding Article 13 of the European Convention (cf. infra). The Inter-American Court correctly underscored the essential connection between Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention when finding, in its judgment in the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia of September 15, 2006, that, as I have been maintaining for some time: "According to the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), recourses that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of the States to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights embodied in the Convention (Article 1(1))" (para. 195). 30. Recently, on December 1, 2005, during the public hearing before this Court in Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin proposed an integrated interpretation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, which, they considered, should necessarily be considered together. The Commission stated that:27 26 . Cf. note (4) supra. 27 . As may be seen from the transcript of the said hearing, deposited in the files of the Court and sent to the parties in the instant case.