178. In this regard, both the Inter-American Court and the IACHR have indicated that although Article 8 of the American Convention is titled " Right to a Fair Trial " its application is not limited to judicial remedies in a strict sense, "but to all the requirements that must be observed in the procedural stages" in order for all persons to be able to defend their rights adequately vis-à-vis any type of State action that could affect them. That is to say that the due process of law must be respected in any act or omission on the part of the State bodies in a proceeding, whether of a punitive administrative, or of a judicial nature171. 179. In the present case, since it is an implicit sanction, imposed by an unjustified decision, the victims in the case were prevented from criticizing the real reason for it or impose a further review by a higher court to analyze the seriousness of the conduct in question and the proportionality of the sanction. The Commission notes that motivation has a significant impact on the analysis of the impartiality of the authority in charge of the exam and application of the penalty, precisely because of this absence favors that non punitive formal acts translate into real sanctions as a way of retaliation against the people who are targeted. 180. For these reasons, the Commission considers that the State is responsible for the abuse of power that took place with the aim of imposing an implicit sanction under the excuse of applying a discretional power, which carried the violation of the substantive rights mentioned, and a general violation of the guarantees of due process enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña. 2. Analysis of effectiveness and due diligence of the amparo remedy and the criminal complaint 181. The Court has indicated that the protection of the individual against the arbitrary exercise of public power is the primary objective of international protection of human rights. The lack of effective domestic remedies renders people defenseless172. 182. The Commission notes that the State has a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to individuals claiming to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process (Article 8.1), all within the general obligation, by such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1.1)173. The Court has indicated that the victims and their relatives have the right, and the States the obligation, to ensure, that what befell the alleged victims will be investigated effectively by the State authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the said public authority was used for ends other than those provided for in Mexican law, thus constituting an abuse of power, through successive and related actions that have tended to deny General José Francisco Gallardo his personal liberty, through acts that have the appearance of legality. Therefore, said conduct by the Mexican military authorities means that the law has been used for a purpose other than the one established in the law, i.e. the unlawful deprivation of liberty through acts that abide by legal formality. IACHR, Report No. 43/96, Case 11.430, Mexico, October 15, 1996, paras. 70 and 114. 171 I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 124; IACHR. Case 12.600 Hugo Quintana Coello et al (Supreme Court of Justice) against Ecuador (Merits), August 2, 2011, para. 100. 172 I/A Court H.R., Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 129; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 113; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 183. 173 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 260; and Case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 284, para. 165. 36