55 234. Regarding the violation of Article 1.1, in relation to Article 25 of the American Convention, this Court has indicated on various occasions that everyone has the right to a simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or judge for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights, “which constitutes one of the basic pillars not only of the American Convention, but also of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the sense of the Convention43”. 235. It has also stated that the absence of an effective remedy to violations of the rights recognized by the Convention is itself a violation of the Convention by the State Party in which the remedy is lacking. In that sense, it should be emphasized that, for such a remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or by law or that it be formally recognized, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress44. 236. In this specific case, the Court considered that it had been proved that Henry Giovanni Contreras, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez were abducted by State agents on June 15, 1990 (supra, para. 80). They remained clandestinely detained for several hours until they were murdered on the following day. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that these victims were prevented from exercising, either themselves or through their representatives, their right to an effective recourse before a competent domestic instance, embodies in Article 25 of the Convention, since they were detained unlawfully and clandestinely. 237. This Court has established that “Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation in Article 1.1 of the American Convention, in that it assigns duties of protection to the States Parties through their domestic legislation”45, from which it is clear that the State has the obligation to design and embody in legislation an effective recourse, and also to ensure the due application of the said recourse by its judicial authorities. 238. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1.1, to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales and their immediate next of kin and that it also violated Article 1.1 of the American Convention as regards the obligation to investigate. 43. Cf. Cesti Hurtado case. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 121; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, supra note 13, para. 184; Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 13, para. 164; Blake case, supra note 16, para. 102; Suárez Rosero case, supra note 25, para. 65 and Castillo Páez case, supra note 15, para. 82. 44. Cesti Hurtado case, supra note 43, para. 125; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, supra note 13, para 185 and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. 45. Cesti Hurtado case, supra note 43, para. 121; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, supra note 13, para. 184; Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 13, para. 164; Blake case, supra note 16, para. 102; Suárez Rosero case, supra note 25, para. 65 and Castillo Páez case, supra note 15, para. 83.