92. Finally, the IACHR recalls that the State had the general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to the people alleging they are the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which shall be substantiated pursuant to legal due process regulations (Article 8.1). For an effective remedy to exist it is not sufficient for it to be legally foreseen but it must be really suitable for establishing if a human rights violation was committed and provide what is necessary to solve it.95 Moreover, the Court indicated that the confusion and contradiction in domestic regulations might place the alleged victims in a vulnerability situation, as they cannot have a simple and effective remedy as a consequence of contradictory regulations.96 93. In the present case, the IACHR recalls that the legal framework in force established that “at legal court, the NCM’s decisions could not be overturned” in matters of assessments and ratifications of judges and prosecutors, and it also indicated that the said decisions were “unchallengeable.” The foregoing implies that, at the time of the facts, there was no remedy in the Peruvian legislation that would allow an integral review of the NCM’s resolutions and there was no possibility of filing for a judicial remedy in view of a potential human rights violation included in the said resolutions. 94. In spite of the abovementioned, the Commission takes cognizance that the alleged victims Cuya Lavy, Díaz Alvarado, and Rodríguez Ricse filed for an appeal petition against the NCM’s resolution, through which their non-ratification was ordered. 95. In the case of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, the motion of appeal was rejected, since it was considered that the NCM’s resolutions could not be overturned, regarding the assessment and ratification of judges. Finally, the special remedy was declared inadmissible, since it was estimated that the ratification function could only be exceptionally overturned in the cases of irregular exercise. 96. In the case of Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodriguez Ricse, both of them were not ratified in 2001 and they filed for a motion of appeal in 2006, when this possibility was enabled due to the judicial change of December 2004; however, the Constitutional Court finally rejected them, since it estimated that the actions were prescribed as the 60-day deadline, which was foreseen in Article 44 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure, expired. 97. The Commission takes cognizance of what the State indicated regarding the fact that the writ of amparo was effective in other cases similar to the petitioners’; however, the State also acknowledged that during the time of the events, “the legislation and case law were completely divided,” which produced uncertainty on the amparo’s legal basis, or not, when the legal framework explicitly denied that possibility, but in practice, some judicial bodies did accept its legal basis against the assessment and ratification resolutions of the NCM. 98. Due to the foregoing, the Commission estimates that the alleged victims did not have a remedy to challenge the decision ordering their non-ratification in their roles as judges and prosecutors, and that produced their dismissals, denying them the possibility of an integral review of both the facts and the law of the decision. Furthermore, neither did they have the effective judicial remedy foreseen in the American Convention to achieve the protection of the allegedly violated human rights. 99. By virtue of the previous reasons, the Commission concludes that the Peruvian State violated the right to appeal against a judgment and the right to legal protection established in Articles 8.2 h) and 25.1 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of this document, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. 95 IAHR Court, Case Workers dismissed from Congress (Aguado Alfaro and others). Judgment on Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Para. 125; IAHR Court, Case Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125. Para. 61; IAHR Court, Case "Cinco Pensionistas". Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98. Para. 136. 96 IAHR Court. Case Maldonado Ordóñez vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 120. 18