157. The Commission noted that the request for compensation for the alleged victims was rejected because the domestic judicial bodies did not consider that the deprivations of liberty to which they were subjected was due to a “judicial error,” which was a requirement of the domestic law. It noted that the claim was the only apparent domestic channel available to obtain reparation for violations to personal liberty and, therefore, the judicial rejection led to a situation of defenselessness. Thus, it argued that the State had violated Article 25(1) of the Convention. The representatives offered similar arguments. 158. The State maintained that the facts show that the alleged victims had a multiplicity of remedies available to them to obtain the compensation and they also had “the guarantee of their exercise and resolution.” It pointed out that the fact that the judicial decisions were not favorable to the victims does not imply the violation of any right. B) Considerations of the Court 159. The Court has noted that “Article 25(1) of the Convention contemplates the duty of the States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an effective recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.”158 It has also held that “it is not sufficient that [the remedy] is established in the Convention or the law or that it be formally admissible” but it must be “appropriate” to establish the violation and to provide the necessary means to redress it. Remedies cannot be considered effective if they are “illusory.”159 160. The Court has also noted that “the treaty-based rights entail the State’s obligation to make the reparation of the violation of those rights possible” and that, thus it is necessary that the States provide the “legal and institutional means that allow those affected to claim reparations. This generally relates to obligation to make reparation to the existence of appropriate administrative or judicial mechanisms and, therefore, to the right of the victims to have access to justice.”160 161. On the basis of the above guidelines, in order to declare, if applicable, the violation of Article 25 mentioned by the Commission and the representatives, it is necessary to evaluate whether it is possible to determine, in accordance with the facts in the case, whether Venezuela provided adequate and effective judicial mechanisms to the victims to obtain an appropriate reparation for the violation of their right to personal liberty, already declared in the Judgment (supra para. 133). 162. The facts in the case show that, on May 24, 2001, Fernando González, María Angélica González, Wilmer Barliza and Belkis González filed a request for compensation, 158 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C No. 228, para 95 and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 100. The illusory nature of a remedy may be caused by “the general situation of the country or even for the particular circumstances of any given case,” for example, when its futility has been shown in practice because the jurisdictional body lacks the means to implement its decision or for any other situation in which justice is being denied. (Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 58 and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, para. 100). 159 Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para 182. 160 41