and by not ensuring the means to implement the decisions and judgments issued by the competent authorities in order to effectively protect the rights, making the right to judicial protection ineffective. Like the Commission, they alleged that the State is responsible for the total lack of investigation into the complaints filed by members of Sarayaku on various occasions. 257. The State argued that the application for amparo filed by the OPIP had been discontinued given the procedural inactivity of the interested party, on the understanding that the appellant “did not show the appropriate interest in pursuing the amparo proceeding” and, therefore, it had been “inconclusive.” In particular, it noted that, in this case, “the lack of celerity was not due to irregularities in the proceedings” but rather to the fact that the interested party did not provide the “necessary collaboration to proceed with summoning one of the defendants” prior to the date of the hearing. The State added that OPIP could not benefit from its own deceitful intent regarding the failure to summon Daymi Services, “because the failure to notify it [Daymi Services] was their fault, because they had not verified the correct address of the defendant, in order to protect the rights allegedly violated.” In addition, the State argued that OPIP did not appear at the hearing, or justify its absence; thus, under the Constitutional Control Act, this is understood as a withdrawal of the application. 258. Regarding the above, the representatives indicated that, on December 2, 2002, the First Civil Judge of Pastaza changed the date of the hearing, and notified the OPIP the same day. They added that the address for Daymi Services indicated in the OPIP brief was wrong, but that the error was corrected by a letter from OPIP dated December 16, 2002, and the case file did not show “that the judge took any further measures following that date to summon another hearing.” Consequently, the representatives indicated that, if he had not summoned all the parties, “the Judge could not possibly have held the hearing, as was the case, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not be accused of failing to appear and even less consider that they had withdrawn the application.” 259. With regard to the investigations, the State indicated that “it cannot be considered guilty of the lack of investigation into the complaints filed by members of the Sarayaku because the investigative processes by the Pastaza Prosecutor’s Office could only be undertaken after the prosecutor had access to the communities and the collaboration of the complainants to continue with the investigation of the cases presented.” It also mentioned that the Sarayaku “did not provide the facilities for the prosecutor to conduct an investigation, because they restricted access to their territory, exposing law enforcement authorities to a major confrontation if they attempted to enter by force.” The State added that the failure to conclude the inquiry was “due to a total refusal to cooperate on the part of the possible victims,” and that under the reforms made to the Criminal Procedure Code in 2009, “inquiry processes cannot be kept open for more than one year for misdemeanors and two years for felonies.” B. Considerations of the Court 260. The Court has considered that the State has an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to persons who claim to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of States to guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to every person under its jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 317 261. In addition, the Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in general terms, the obligation of the States to guarantee effective judicial remedies for acts that violate fundamental rights. When interpreting the text of Article 25 of the Convention, the Court has held on other occasions that the obligation of the State to provide a judicial remedy is not satisfied by the mere existence of courts or formal procedures or even the possibility of having recourse to 317 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 105. 73