victims with the National Border Council and who was accused of having exercised such power arbitrarily, ii) Conducting an interview with Jorge Guerra Navarro, employee of the National Border Council, whose contract would have been terminated but was kept in his post for allegedly committing to withdraw his signature in the process of challenge; iii) call to testify people of the staff to the National Border Council, who could have testified about the facts of the case and the context in the National Border Council; and iv) requesting the payroll of the National Border Council for 2003 and the list of signatories of the petition for a presidential recall referendum. 193. In this regard, the Commission considers that neither under the amparo remedy, nor under the criminal investigation, the judicial authorities examined properly the allegation of disguised discrimination, limiting themselves to verify the formal justification given by the authorities, placing all the burden of proof on the victims, for a fact that, by its very nature, can hardly have direct or "reliable" evidence, as indicated by the authority who heard the amparo claim. 194. The Commission further notes that in the context of the criminal investigation, the victims filed an appeal against the decision of dismissal. By raising the appeal, they argued that the decision to dismiss erred in law in concluding ""even if it had been that way (if it had been confirmed that the reason for the termination of the contract was voting in the recall referendum) neither such allegations constitute offenses” indicating that the facts do constitute offenses under articles 203, 166, 175, 254, 286 of the Criminal Code, 256 of the Law of Suffrage and Political Participation and 68 of the Anti-Corruption Act, also arguing that if wasn’t proved that the reason for the termination of the contracts was the participation in the recall referendum, it was precisely because the prosecution did not develop a proper investigation. 195. The Commission emphasizes that in the decision to deny the appeal, the Court of Appeals did not address the allegations of the alleged victims and merely stated that "it is impossible to demand of the Public Ministry (owner criminal action by excellence), to present a different final action other than the one already exercised (dismissal of this case) (...)“184.The Commission notes that Article 447 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides the possibility of challenging decisions that "end the process or make it impossible to continue"185. 196. In this respect, the Commission recalls that Article 25.1 of the American Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an effective judicial remedy186 which supposes that, in addition to the formal existence of remedies, these obtain results or responses to the violations of the rights established in the Convention, the Constitution, or by law187. 197. The Commission considers that the appeal in this case, by not ruling nor containing adequate motivation for understanding that the arguments of the victims were duly considered, as well as the reasons of their irrelevance, did not constitute an effective remedy to examine the decision to dismiss. 198. In light of all the above considerations the Commission concludes that neither the amparo remedy, nor the criminal investigation, including the appeal against the dismissal, constituted effective remedies to deal with the alleged misuse of power materialized in covert discrimination. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State of Venezuela is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in relation 184 Annex 62. Decision of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, which dismisses the appeal, May 12, 2005, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 185 Criminal Procedure Code, Official Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela No 5558 of 14-11-2001, available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/cyb_ven_Cod_Org_Pro_Penal.pdf. 186 I/A Court H.R., Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 103. I/A Court H.R., Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 107. 187 39