confers upon the family members of victims the right to receive reparation for the harm done by the death of their loved ones.127 106. In addition, the right to effective judicial protection is established in Article 25 of the American Convention. Here, the Court has determined that “the formal existence of remedies is not enough, if they are not effective; they must provide a solution or an answer to the violation of the rights embodied in the Convention, in the Constitution or in the laws." 128 Thus, the Court has stressed that that for there to be an effective remedy it is not enough for it to be established in the Constitution or the law or for it to be formally admissible, instead it is required that it be fit to establish if there has been a violation to human rights and provide what is necessary to correct that situation. 129 107. Likewise, the Court has established that "Any law or measure that obstructs or prevents persons from availing themselves of the recourse in question is a violation of the right of access to the courts, in the manner upheld in Article 25 of the American Convention. 130 108. As regards Article 2 of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that this principle establishes the general obligation of each State Party to bring its domestic laws into line with the provisions of the Convention, in order to guarantee the rights established therein, 131 which implies that domestic legal measures have to be effective (the effet utile principle).132 109. As the jurisprudence of the Court has consistently established, Article 2 of the Convention entails the adoption of measures along two main lines, namely: i) the annulment of norms and practices of any kind whatsoever that may imply the violation of the guarantees protected by the Convention, or fail to recognize or else obstruct the rights recognized therein and ii) the passing of laws and the development of practices conducive to effective observance of such guarantees. 133 The Court has understood that the first set of obligations are not fulfilled when the practice violating the Convention is maintained in the legal system 134 and, therefore, that they are fulfilled by amending, 135 repealing, or in some manner annulling 136 or reforming137 the norms or practices that have such effects, as the case may be.138 127 IACHR, Report No. 62/01, Case 11.564, Massacre of Riofrío, Colombia, April 6, 2001, par. 44. 128 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Buendía et al v. Peru. Judgment of July 1, 2008. Series C No. 198, par. 69. 129I/A 130 Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, par. 61. I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, par. 52. I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, par. 56; Case of La Cantuta Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, par. 171, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 117. 131 132 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, par. 56; Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, par. 171; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, par. 205. 133 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, par. 56; Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, par. 172, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 118. 134 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, par. 56; “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 172. 135 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, par. 56; Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paragraphs 97 and 130. 136 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, par. 56; Yatama Case. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, par. 254. 137 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment of Sunday, July 04, 2004. Series C No. 166, par. 56; Case of Raxcacó Reyes. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, paragraphs 87 and 125. 138 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2004. Series C No. 166, par. 56; Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, par. 172. 21