action for protection, particularly, because they were censored because of their mutual expressions of affection, the above, generated their departure from the place, and also, the defendant conditioned their entry to both of them “(…) knowing how to behave”39. 2. Standards related to the right to judicial protection 41. The Commission has held that according to dispositions set forth in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention the States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated according to its rules40. In the case of Simone André Diniz versus Brasil, the IACHR decided on the State’s obligations upon a claim for racial discrimination to access a work position. In such matter the Commission highlighted the following: All victim of human rights violations must be guaranteed a diligent, and impartial investigation and, existing signs of a crime constitution, the initiation of the pertinent action so that a competent judge, within a fair trial, determine whether there has been a crime or not, as it happens with every crime brought to public authority examination. Should this not happen with the complaints for racial discrimination formulated by African descent persons in Brazil, the State flagrantly violates the principle of equality enshrined in the American Declaration and Convention, toward which it obliged itself to respect, and that determine that all persons are equal before the law and have a right, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. The Commission understands that excluding a person of the access to the employment market due to his race constitutes an act of racial discrimination41. 42. The Commission underscores that according to the obligation to guarantee human rights, both bodies of the Inter American system have stated that in determined circumstances the international responsibility of the State may also generate from acts of privates initially not directly assignable to the State; this due the lack of due diligence from the State to prevent, investigate and punish all violation of the rights recognized by the Convention or the absence of actions to restore, if possible, such right. Likewise, regarding this obligation, the IHR Court pointed out that it implies the duty of States Party to organize their whole governmental apparatus and, in general, all structures through which the exercise of public power is manifested, in such a way that they are able to juridically ensure the free and full exercise of human rights42. In order to determine the international responsibility of the State, it is crucial to clarify whether a determined violation of human rights recognized by the Convention has taken place with the support or tolerance of the public power or whether it has acted in a way in which the transgression has consummated in spite of all prevention or unpunished43. 43. In regard to acts by companies that may imply abuses on human rights, the IACHR has stressed that States must take proper measures to guarantee that persons and communities affected by abuses and violation of their human rights produced under the jurisdiction of the State may access to effective mechanisms of reparation, which includes accountability by companies and the determination of their penal, criminal, civil or administrative responsibility. In that aim, the State mechanisms must be the base of a broad system of reparation in which the population must be informed on how to access them44. 44. The effectiveness of a remedy must be understood in relation to its possibility to determine the existence of fundamental rights violations, to repair the damage caused and to allow the punishment of those responsible 45 . Along the same line of ideas, concerning the affectations on human rights within corporate Constitutional Court. Sentence T-335/19 of July 26, 2019. IACHR. Access to justice as guarantee of economic, social and cultural rights. September 7, 2007, para 177. 41 IACHR. Report No. 66/06. Case 12.001. Merits. Simone André Diniz. Brazil. October 21, 2006, para 97-99. 42 IHR Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Sentence of July 29, 1988. Serie C No. 4. Para 166. 43 IHR Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Sentence of July 29, 1988. Serie C No. 4. Para 173. 44 IACHR. Business and Human Rights: Inter American Standards. Report prepared by REDESCA. OEA/Ser.L/V/II IACHR/REDESCA/INF.1/19 November 1, 2019, para 121 45 IACHR. Access to justice as guarantee of economic, social and cultural rights. Study of the standards set forth by the Inter American Human Rights System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129. Doc. 4. September 7, 2007. para 248. 39 40 14