cannot result in an obstruction of the possibility of the victims, pursuant to the rights to judicial guarantees and protection, filing actions to claim reparations.105 69. In the same case, the Court wrote: “according to treaty-based rights, the establishment of domestic administrative or collective reparation programs does not prevent the victims from filing actions to claim measures of reparation.”106 70. In turn, the Commission has ruled on the existence of different avenues to provide reparation to the victims in situations of serious human rights violations. In the “Commission’s view, the adoption of an administrative reparations program ought not to preclude other judicial avenues to access comprehensive reparations”107 for the victims. B. Right to a fair trial and judicial protection (article 8.1108 and 25.1109 of the American Convention) in connection with article 1.1110 of the same instrument 71. The Commission has held that States parties to the Convention are obligated to provide for effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law.111 72. In this regard, the Commission has established that Article 25 of the American Convention is directly related to Article 8.1 of the same instrument, which enshrines the right of every person to be heard with the protections of due process of law and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial judge or tribunal.112 73. As for the scope of protection afforded by Article 25 of the Convention, the Court has written that said article “states, in ample terms, the obligation corresponding to the States to offer, all people submitted to its jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. It also states, that the guarantee enshrined therein applies not only to the rights included in the Convention, but also to those acknowledged by the Constitution or a law.113” 105 IA Court of HR. Case of García Lucero et al v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267. Para. 190. 106 IA Court of HR. Case of García Lucero et al v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267. Para. 192. 107 IACHR. Principal Guidelines for Comprehensive Reparations Policy Lineamientos principales para una política integral de reparaciones, OEA/Ser/L/V/II.131, Doc. 1, February 19, 2008, para. 5. 108 Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 109 Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 110 The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 111 IACHR. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129 Doc. 4, September 7, 2007, para. 177. 112 IACHR, Report No. 26/09, Case 12.440, Wallace de Almeida, Brazil, March 20, 2009, para. 119. 113 IA Court of HR. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197. Para. 59. Citing. Cfr. 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. 23; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 57. 15