27 * * 98. The Court will refer first to the State’s argument that the alleged victim should have proved that a right to present himself as an independent candidate existed in order to be able to file remedy. 99. In the instant case, the alleged victim sought to exercise his right to judicial protection to obtain a pronouncement on the scope and content of a human right, the political right to be elected, embodied in Article 23(1)(b) of the American Convention and in Article 35(II) of the Mexican Constitution and eventually obtain a judicial decision in favor of his claim. 100. The Court considers that the meaning of the protection granted by Article 25 of the Convention is the real possibility of access to a judicial remedy so that the competent authority, with jurisdiction to issue a binding decision, determines whether there has been a violation of a right claimed by the person filing the action, and that the remedy is useful to restitute to the interested party the enjoyment of his right and to repair it, if it finds there has been a violation. Indeed, it would be unreasonable to establish this judicial guarantee if the plaintiffs were obliged to know beforehand whether the judicial organ would consider that their situation was protected by a specific right. 101. Based on the above, and irrespective of whether the judicial authority declares the claim of the persons who files a remedy to be unfounded, because it is not covered by the norm invoked or should it find that there has not been a violation of the right alleged to have been violated, the State is obliged to provide effective remedies that allow individuals to challenge those acts of authority which they consider violate their human rights established in the Convention, the Constitution and the law. Indeed, Article 25 of the American Convention establishes the right to the judicial protection of the rights embodied in the Convention, the Constitution or the law, and it can be violated irrespective of whether or not there has been a violation of the right claimed or that the situation on which it was based fell within the sphere of application of the right invoked. This is because, like Article 8, “Article 25 of the Convention also embodies the right of access to justice.”31 * * * 102. The Convention establishes that a person subject to the jurisdiction of the State must have access “to a simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights.” 103. The Court considers that, in the instant case, the dispute between the parties is limited to two of the said characteristics related to the effectiveness of the recourse: (a) whether the alleged victim had access to a recourse, and (b) whether the competent court had the necessary powers to restore the enjoyment of his rights to the alleged victim, if it found that those rights had been violated. The Court will refer to the first of these characteristics as the “accessibility of the recourse” and to the second as the “effectiveness of the recourse.” a) Accessibility of the recourse 104. The representatives alleged that Article 80 of the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters restricts the admissibility of the judicial action for protection to individuals who, having been 31 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 52.