16 existence of this guarantee “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but of the Rule of Law itself in a democratic society in the sense of the Convention.”49 60. Article 25 of the Convention is intimately linked to the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the same, which attributes duties of protection of the domestic law of the States Parties, from which it can be concluded that the State has the responsibility to design and through instruments enshrine an effective remedy, as well as guarantee the correct application of that remedy by its judicial authorities.50 At the same time, the State’s general duty to adapt its domestic law to the stipulations of said Convention in order to guarantee the rights enshrined in it, established in Article 2, includes the enactment of regulations and the development of practices that seek to achieve an effective observation of the rights and liberties enshrined in it, as well as the adoption of measures to suppress the regulations and practices of any nature that imply a violation to the guarantees established in the Convention.51 61. In a similar sense, the Court has understood that for there to be an effective remedy it is not enough for it to be established in the Constitution or the law or for it to be formally admissible, instead it is required that it be fit to establish if there has been a violation to human rights and provide what is necessary to correct that situation.52 Those remedies that, due to the country’s general conditions or due to the specific circumstances of a given case, result illusory cannot be considered effective.53 62. In the present case, the Court verifies that through the appeal for annulment filed by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo it was declared that her dismissal was not lawful (supra para. 53) but it did not order her reinstatement or payment of the salaries she did not perceive because of that dismissal. Additionally, the judgment of the SPA stated that “the elements present in the records of the case file” of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo would have led to the SPA ordering the reinstatement if it would not have been for the process of judicial restructuring and the position of provisional judge she Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 57, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 10, para. 102. 49 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 131. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 18, para. 78. 50 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 135 Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 99. 51 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, supra note 48, para. 122 and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico, supra note 49, para. 79. 52 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 48, para. 24; Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136, and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, supra note 50, para. 113. 53 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 48, para. 24; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 145, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 111.