15 1) To eliminate from the dossier found in the files of the [CFRSJ] the punishment of dismissal imposed on the citizen María Cristina Reverón Trujillo, through the administrative act of February 6, 2002, issued by that Commission. In this sense, all information that mentions that the previously mentioned citizen was punished in the previously stated terms shall be deleted from her judicial file, in order to avoid the formation of possible negative effects in future competitive tenders in which the appellant could eventually participate, reason for which we order that a certified copy of the present decision be annexed to the appellant’s administrative case file. […] 2) Given the condition of provisional judge maintained by the appellant up to when the present appeal was filed and in order to preserve her right to participate in the public competitive tenders to which she may aspire, as long, naturally, as she fulfills the requirements demanded in each case, we order her evaluation during the complete period during which she exercised her judgeship, as well as her inclusion, if requested by her, in the mentioned competitive tenders. 3) Since the present decision does not order the reinstatement of the judge to the position she had been occupying, this Chamber abstains from ordering the payment of the salaries she stopped receiving as of the date of her dismissal. So ordered.47 2. The right to an effective remedy 56. In the opinion of the Commission and the representatives the violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention occurred precisely because the SPA did not order the reinstatement or Mrs. Reverón Trujillo to her position and payment of the salaries she did not perceive. According to the Commission, “the effectiveness of a remedy is not limited only to the formal declaration of a violation, on the contrary, the right to access justice implies that the State adopt all the measures necessary to correct that situation.” Likewise, the Commission stated that the SPA’s decision “necessarily implied the disposal of all the mechanisms necessary to correct the violation found,” specifically “the reinstatement to the position and payment of the salaries and benefits she did not perceive.” 57. The representatives argued that the denial of justice in this case “obeys to the non-satisfaction of logics and the main consequence of an ordinary legal remedy, specifically, an appeal for annulment of a dismissal from a public position” and that “the necessary and indispensable effective result of a judicial remedy that would determine the illegality of a dismissal is the consistent reinstatement to the position and the benefits that were not perceived.” 58. On its part, the State held that “the fact that the reparation ordered by [the SPA] is different to the one expected by the alleged victim, and by the InterAmerican Commission, does not imply that the remedy was not effective, pursuant with the objective conditions of the specific case.” Those “objective conditions” would be, according to Venezuela, the process of judicial restructuring the country is going through and the condition of “provisional judge” of the alleged victim. For the State, the reparation measures agreed on by the SPA were “appropriate for the case of the provisional judges.” 59. Article 25(1) of the Convention states, in ample terms, the obligation corresponding to the States to offer, all people submitted to its jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. It also states, that the guarantee enshrined therein applies not only to the rights included in the Convention, but also to those acknowledged by the Constitution or a law.48 The 47 48 Cf. judgment issued by the SPA on October 13, 2004, supra note 45, folios 183 and 184. Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A No. 9, para. 23;