higher rank.57 It must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata, it must be resolved within a reasonable time, and it must be timely and effective, in other words, it must provide results or responses consistent with its intended purpose. It must also be accessible, without requiring any great formalities that might render the right illusory.58 102. The IACHR recalls that the State has a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to persons who claim to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)). Therefore, for an effective remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for in law but, rather, it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.59 103. The IACHR recalls that the State argued that it did not violate the right to appeal the judgment to a higher judge or court because the alleged victim had recourse to the appeal envisaged at Article 67 of the National Police Personnel Law to challenge the decision to dismiss him, which he refrained from using. It added that, in any event, Mr. Mina Cuero obtained a judicial review of his dismissal via the application for constitutional relief (amparo). 104. The IACHR finds that Article 67 of the National Police Personnel Law does indeed provide that “[p]olice personnel who consider that they have been unlawfully placed in transitory status or discharged may appeal to the appropriate Council in the manner set forth in Article 55 of this Law.” Furthermore, Article 55 of that law provides that “resolutions adopted by the respective councils may be appealed ....” 105. In addition, Article 84 of the Disciplinary Regulations of the National Police provides: “Penalties imposed for offenses may be appealed, except when imposed in judgments of the Disciplinary Tribunal or by order of the President of the Republic.” Faced with this apparent contradiction, the State offered no explanation as to how Mr. Mina Cuero had recourse to appeal when the more specific rule that established the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal—on which basis the punitive proceeding against him was conducted—precisely excluded the possibility of challenging the penalties imposed by the tribunal. 106. At the same time, the Commission notes that Esmeraldas Civil Court, upon rejecting the amparo application filed by the alleged victim on December 15, 2000, merely indicated that the penalty had been imposed in accordance with all constitutional standards, that no formalities whatever had been omitted, and that the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal could not be challenged via the amparo remedy. Likewise, the Constitutional Court, in throwing out the unconstitutionality suit brought by the petitioner, merely said that the alleged victim had ample opportunity to exercise his right of defense during his disciplinary proceeding, given that he was assisted at his hearing by a defense lawyer and testimony was admitted from policemen who went to the scene of the incident, and that nothing unconstitutional was proven that might warrant its pronouncement. 107. In that connection, the IACHR considers that the contents of both decisions suggest that the competent bodies did not make a comprehensive examination of the factual and legal aspects related to the decision to dismiss the alleged victim, nor offered judicial protection against the various violations of the right of defense, the right to be presumed innocent, the principle of legality, and the right to reasoned decisions in the terms analyzed in this report. 108. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Ecuadorian State is responsible for violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Víctor Henry Mina Cuero. 57IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica, April 4, 2014, par. 186. Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica, April 4, 2014, pars. 186 and ff. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.), Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 24, 2006, Series C No. 158, par. 125; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, Judgment of June 17, 2005, Series C No. 125. par. 61; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners,” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, par. 136. 58IACHR, 59