2 this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a) to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. The Court, besides, has declared the violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, regardless of other violations of other articles. 2 Furthermore, it has been considered and declared the violation of Articles 8(1) y 25 in an autonomous manner, without taking into account Article 1(1) of the Convention. 3 Furthermore, the Court has applied Articles 8(1) and 25 in conjunction with other Articles of the Convention other than Article 1(1). 4 As a consequence, to pretend that the Court consider that Articles 8(1) and 25 cannot be declared as violated by the Tribunal, independently, as an autonomous violation, but only in conjunction with other substantive right that may not be Article 1(1), is to affirm that the American Convention does not protect the right to Justice and it would mean giving Articles 8(1) and 25 the character of general provisions that, as Article 1(1) does, would cover all the Convention, which would result in the denaturalization of the content of Articles 8(1) and 25. To modify the Court’s jurisprudence regarding his issue, after more than 20 years of exercising its judicial functions is, apart from inappropriate and unnecessary, confusing. This is to introduce an element of distortion in the deliberation of future cases. Manuel E. Ventura Robles Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 2 Cf. IACHR, Case of “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala; Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. 3 Cf. IACHR, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72; IACHR; and Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Judgment of November 6, 2001. Series C No. 90. 4 Cf. IACHR, Case of Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of January 21, 2006. Series C No. 152; IACHR, Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155.