53 rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 135. This Court has reiterated that the right of everyone to a simple and prompt recourse or any other recourse to a competent judge or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights is one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention but also of the rule of law itself in a democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention [...]. By attributing functions of protection to the domestic legislation of the States Parties, Article 25 is closely related to the general obligation in Article 1(1) of the American Convention92. 136. The Court has also stated that: The inexistence of an effective recourse against the violation of the rights recognized by the Convention constitutes a transgression of the Convention by the State Party in which such a situation occurs. In that respect, it should be emphasized that, for such a recourse to exist, it is not enough that it is established in the Constitution or in the law or that it should be formally admissible, but it must be truly appropriate to establish whether there has been a violation of human rights and to provide everything necessary to remedy it. Those recourses that are illusory, owing to the general conditions in the country or to the particular circumstances of a specific case, shall not be considered effective93. 137. Recourses are illusory when it is shown that they are ineffective in practice, when the Judiciary lacks the necessary independence to take an impartial decision, or in the absence of ways of executing the respective decisions that are delivered. They are also illusory when justice is denied, when there is an unjustified delay in the decision and when the alleged victim is impeded from having access to a judicial recourse94. 138. The Court considers that it has been proved that Mr. Ivcher Bronstein filed a series of recourses before the domestic tribunals, principally in order to defend his rights as a Peruvian citizen and shareholder of the Company. 139. The domestic tribunals that decided the judicial recourses filed by Mr. Ivcher did not satisfy the minimum requirements of independence and impartiality that Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes as essential elements of due legal process, 92 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8, para. 90; Bámaca Velásquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 191; Cantoral Benavides case, supra note 13, para. 163; Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 101; Villagrán Morales et al. (the “Street Children” case). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 234; Cesti Hurtado case, supra note 12, para. 121; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, supra note 78, para. 184; Paniagua Morales et al. case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series D No. 37, para. 164; Blake case. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 102; Suárez Rosero case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65; and Castillo Páez case. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, paras. 82 and 83. 93 Cf. Constitutional Court case, supra note 8, para. 89; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8, American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 83, para. 23. 94 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 83, para. 24.