25 indicated that “it was only in the year 2006 that the petitioners complied with the presentation of[...] the party’s calculation, [and] that the determination of the amounts owed is […] complex [inasmuch as it is essential to determine] the amount that corresponds to each one of the more [200] petitioners, many of them have different circumstances (positions, hours worked, different reference salaries, among other things)"; therefore the State has not failed to comply with a payment, the amount of which is still uncertain. 69. The Court has stated that Article 25(1) of the Convention contemplates the duty of the States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an effective recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.49 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 Constitution50 or in the laws.51 In this sense, those remedies that, owing to the general conditions of the country or even the particular circumstances of a case, are illusory cannot be considered effective. This may occur, for example, when there uselessness has been shown in practice, because the means to execute its decisions are lacking or owing to any other situation that establishes a situation of denial of justice.52 Hence, the process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of this ruling.53 70. Furthermore, Article 25(2) (c) of the Convention establishes the State’s obligation “to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”54 71. Moreover, even though the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not include an Article equivalent to Article 25(2)(c)) of the American Convention, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has referred to the requirements of such Article in the ruling about Article 6 of the above Convention, on the right to a fair trial.55 In this 49 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 11, para. 91; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 13, para. 110; and Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C N. 184, para. 34. 50 In accordance with Article 139(2) of the Constitution of Perú “no authority may […] annul Orders with authority of final judgment, or terminate proceedings while the Order is still pending or modify judgments or delay its enforcement”. 51 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 90; Case of Bayarri, supra note 12, para. 102; and Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 49, para. 78. Cf. also, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 23. 52 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 137; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 45 para. 213; Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 192. 53 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 45 para. 217; and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73. 54 Cf. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute" V. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 248; and Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C Nº. 146, para. 92. 55 Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Right to a Fair Trial) provides that: 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of