38 relationship since the judicial protection referred to in Article 25 is one way to fulfill the obligation to guarantee derived from Article 1(1) of the Convention; furthermore, such judicial protection is linked to the right to be heard in terms of Article 8 and that it be carried out with the minimum guarantees of due process laid out therein. In this sense, since the case of Cesti Hurtado V. Peru (1999), the Inter-American Court established that Article 25 is intimately linked to Article 1(1) as the State has the obligation to design and enforce a remedy that should be properly applied. 181 Likewise, since its Advisory Opinion OC-9/87182, the Inter-American Court established that Article 25 is linked to Article 8 in that the remedies of amparo and habeas corpus must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law.183 129. However, notwithstanding the obvious link between the three treaty provisions mentioned above and developed in the Inter-American case law, it is possible to state that within the design of the American Convention, the three articles maintain their autonomy and specific content. This results in, among other factors, both in the obvious fact that each of the provisions are found in different articles, as well as that Article 8 has a more general language and regulates a wider range of procedures of either a criminal type, or of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature, in the logic of due process. Article 25, on the other hand, establishes the rules of a remedy to protect any person against acts that violate his fundamental rights. Therefore, both rights have their own origin, configuration, and characteristics that must not be confused. 130. This case highlights the gray area that often exists to determine the independence of these rights, especially in reference to the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court (Article 8(2)(h)) with respect to the duty to guarantee access to a judicial remedy that is effective, appropriate, prompt and simple (Article 25(1)). 131. In order to achieve the differentiation between these rights, I have tried, in the second part of this concurring opinion, to point out a new dimension of Article 25 of the American Convention, that has been under-developed so far in Inter-American case law, as is the understanding of the scope of the right of individuals to a recourse “for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention.” This understanding of the right to the guarantee of fundamental rights serves the normative force of Article 25, which has an important place within the structure of the American Convention itself. 132. This logic even has its origins in the preparatory work of the American Convention, which, pursuant to an interesting debate and a proposal by the government of Chile, it was included that judicial protection should not only refer to fundamental rights provided for within the domestic sphere, but also those embodied in the American Convention. 184 The 181 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 168. 182 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency(Arts. 27(2) and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series to No. 9, para. 24. 183 As established in the Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. V. Trinidad and Tobago: “For the right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention to be preserved, it is essential that the remedy be processed according to the norms of due process enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention, including access to legal assistance.” 184 In this regard, Chile stated that “Article 23 [(currently Article 25) of the American Convention was] insufficient, since it is limited in that it provides that ‘all persons have the right to an effective, prompt, and simple remedy before competent domestic courts or tribunals, that protect against acts that violate fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution or legislation. [To which][this] provision of the project did not refer to the rights recognized specifically in the Convention. [Therefore, the government of Chile suggested that] it would be best to