exist, it is not sufficient that it be established by the Constitution or by law, or that it is formally admissible; rather, it must be truly appropriate to establish whether a human rights violation has been committed and ensure what is necessary to provide redress. Those remedies that are illusory, owing to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances of a given case, cannot be considered effective.273 This may occur, for example, when their ineffectiveness has been demonstrated in the practice, because the mechanisms to execute the resulting decisions are absent, or due to any other circumstance that constitutes a situation of denial of justice.274 Thus, the procedure must be aimed at implementing the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling by the appropriate application of this ruling.275 229. The Court has indicated that, under Article 25 of the Convention, two specific State obligations can be identified. The first is to establish by law, and ensure the due application of, effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect every person subject to the State’s jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that lead to the determination of their rights and obligations. The second is to guarantee the means to implement the respective final rulings and judgments delivered by these competent authorities,276 so that the rights that have been declared or recognized are truly protected. The right established in Article 25 is closely related to the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by attributing protective functions to the domestic law of the States Parties.277 Hence, the State has the responsibility not only to draft and enact an effective remedy, but also to ensure the due application of this remedy by its judicial authorities.278 230. The Court notes that, during the public hearing, the State acquiesced to the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention in relation to the events surrounding the termination of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal. Specifically, during this hearing, the State expressly declared the following: “The State has not provided them [the members of the Constitutional Tribunal] with an effective and appropriate remedy to appeal their termination […] as established […] in [Article…] 25 [of the American Convention].” 231. In this case, the Court has accepted the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility in relation to the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention in the terms expressly indicated by the State. Nevertheless, the scope of the acquiescence must be clarified and, in this context, the Court must decide the subsisting disputes, including whether Article 25 has been violated owing to the State’s failure to comply with the obligation to provide, to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 273 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 7, para. 137, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, para. 142. 274 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 58, and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 107. 275 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina, para. 209. 276 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 83. 277 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 83, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 141. 278 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 237, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, para. 141. 70