Ms. Andrade, even though at that time there was no initial order of investigation in force; accordingly Ms. Andrade Salmón remained deprived of liberty. Once the initial order of investigation was issued on November 7, 2000, the Seventh Criminal Examining Judge took the sworn statement from Ms. Andrade on November 14, 2000, issuing an order of pre-trial detention against her on that same date, contrary to what was resolved by the Constitutional Court on August 31, 2000, and by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice on October 2, 2000. 238. According to the facts proven Ms. Andrade appealed the pre-trial detention order on November 15, 2000, which was overturned on December 1, 2000, by the Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, setting bail at 300,000 bolivianos, even though the Constitutional Court had imposed a bail of 100,000 bolivianos on August 31, 2000, and the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice a bail of 80,000 bolivianos on October 2, 2000, which had been replaced by a vehicle. As a result, Ms. Andrade filed a writ of habeas corpus in relation to the bail imposed that was determined to be unfounded on December 7, 2000, thus this judgment was appealed. Finally, on January 16, 2001, the Constitutional Court overturned the foregoing judgment and ordered the court from which the appeal was taken to apply the substitute measures it deemed pertinent, ensuring that the bail not be one that it would be impossible for her to make. 239. The Commission notes that finally on February 6, 2001, the substitute measures were ordered by the judge in charge of the case, who among other measures set a bail of 40,000 bolivianos, thus Ms. Andrade Salmón, after complying with the previous measures, regained her liberty on February 10, 2001, after having been deprived of liberty for six months from the time the initial order of investigation that was subsequently voided was issued, and almost five-and-a-half months after the Constitutional Court decided to impose substitute measures in her favor. In addition, the Commission observes that even though Article 18 of the Constitution established that “the judgment should be executed immediately,” from the issuance of the judgment of January 16, 2001, until the holding of the hearing on alternative measures, 21 days elapsed. 240. The Commission notes that for a remedy to be effective, it must be genuinely suitable to establish whether a violation of human rights has occurred and provide as necessary to remedy it.283 Specifically, the Inter-American Court has established that Article 7(6) of the Convention is not guaranteed merely by the formal existence of the remedy, but that in addition it must be effective, i.e. it must yield results or responses to the violations of rights set forth in the Convention.284 To the contrary, the judicial activity would not signify a real control, but merely a formal or even symbolic procedure that would result in an impairment of the liberty of the individual. Furthermore, an analysis of the lawfulness of a deprivation of liberty “must examine the reasons invoked by the complainant and specifically express an opinion on them, in accordance with the parameters established in the Inter-American Convention.”285 241. In addition, the American Convention (Article 25(2)(c)), like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 2(3)(c)), expressly establish the duty of the competent authorities to comply with every decision it which it has considered a motion aimed at protecting human rights to be wellfounded.286 Therefore, it does not suffice for there to be a judgment that recognizes the existence of certain 283 I/A Court H.R. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention). Advisory Opinion OC9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. 284 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 133; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 77; Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 126. 285 I/A Court H.R. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 103; Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96. 286 I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paras. 245-251; and IACHR, Report No. 35/96, Case 10,832, Merits, Luis Lizardo Cabrera, Dominican Republic, April 7, 1998, paras. 107 and 108.