31 protection.70 In this sense, the non-existence of effective internal recourses makes a person defenseless. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in ample terms, the obligation of the States to offer all people submitted to its jurisdiction an effective judicial recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.71 93. Under this perspective, it has been indicated that in order for the State to comply with that stated in the aforementioned Article 25(1) of the Convention it is not enough for the recourses to exist formally, but it is necessary that they be effective,72 that is, the person must be given a real opportunity to present a simple and prompt recourse that allows them to obtain, in their case, the judicial protection required. This Court has repeatedly stated that the existence of these guarantees “represents one of the basic mainstays, not only of the American Convention, but also of the Rule of Law in a democratic society in the sense set forth in the Convention.”73 94. The Political Constitution of Ecuador, codified in 1984, in force at the time of Mr. Acosta Calderón’s arrest, in its Article 19(17)(j) includes the following stipulation: everybody who believes to be illegally arrested may avail oneself of the habeas corpus. This right will be exercised on their own behalf or through a third party, without the need of a written mandate before the Mayor or President of the Council under which jurisdiction they are or their equal. The municipal authority will immediately order that the petitioner be taken before them and that the arrest warrant be presented. Their mandate will be obeyed without observations or excuses by those in charge of the social rehabilitation center or prison. […] 95. Article 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedures stated that: [a]ny defendant that is arrested with infractions to the stipulations included in the [mentioned] Code, may turn to the Superior Judge of whoever has ordered his arrest in order to demand their freedom. […] The request will be made in writing. The Judge that must hear the request will order the presentation of the detainee immediately after he receives said request and will hear their exposition, spreading it upon a record that will be signed by the Judge, the Secretary, and the complainant, or by a witness in his place, if they do not know how to sign. With the mentioned exposition, the Judge will request all data considered necessary to form a criteria and ensure the legality of his decision, and within forty eight hours will issue a judgment with what he considers legal […] […] 70 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 130; Case of “Children’s Rehabilitation” Case, supra note 59, para. 239; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 78. 71 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 130; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 6, para. 194; and Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 57, para. 116. 72 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 131; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 57, para. 117; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 121. 73 Cfr. Case of Tibi, supra note 6, para. 131; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 57, para. 117; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 121.