22 procedural rights. 88. This Court finds that it has not been proven that Mr. Raymond Genie-Peñalba found himself in a situation of inferiority in relation to the defendant or the military judges when he appeared as the accusing party before the military courts; consequently, there was no violation of the right to equal protection of the law, established in Article 24 of the Convention and invoked by the Inter-American Commission, inasmuch as that right may only be examined in this Case with regard to the procedural rights of the interested party (supra 72). 89. Article 25 of the Convention governs the simple and prompt recourse for the protection of persons injured by violations of their rights enshrined in the Convention. In the instant Case the Commission has indicated the possible violation of Mr. Raymond GeniePeñalba's procedural rights protected under Article 8(1) of the Convention during the criminal case, but not the non-existence or ineffectiveness of this remedy, nor even that it was applied; consequently, the Court considers that Article 25 of the Convention was not violated (supra 73). 90. The Commission alleges that the Government of Nicaragua violated the provisions of Article 2 of the Convention inasmuch as, owing to the incompatibility of Decrees 591 and 600 with the Convention, it has not fulfilled the obligation to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights or freedoms enshrined therein. 91. With regard to the Government's failure to comply with Article 2 of the American Convention with the application of Decrees 591 and 600, this Court found that the military courts did not per se violate the Convention (supra 84), and regarding the alleged application of some of the provisions of those decrees that could contravene the Convention, it has already been determined that they were not enforced in the instant Case (supra 72). Consequently, the Court does not express an opinion on the compatibility of these articles with the Convention; to act otherwise would be to make an abstract analysis, which lies outside the purview of this Court. 92. It must be said, also, that the Legislative Assembly of Nicaragua has issued Law 181 containing the Code of Military Organization, Jurisdiction and Social Welfare of August 23, 1994, promulgated on September 2, 1994, which amended a number of the provisions of the above-cited decrees. This law was not enforced in the instant Case and the Court, therefore, refrains from examining it. 93. As regards the allegation made by the Commission and challenged by the Government to the effect that non-compliance with the recommendations it made in its reports constitutes a violation of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Court merely reiterates its declaration in another case: [i]n the Court's Judgment, the term "recommendations" used by the American Convention should be interpreted to conform to its ordinary meaning, in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. For that reason, a recommendation does not have the character of an obligatory judicial decision for which the failure to comply would generate State responsibility. As there is no evidence in the present Convention that the parties intended to give it a special meaning, Article 31(4) of the Vienna Convention is not applicable. Consequently, the State does not incur international responsibility by not complying with a recommendation which is not obligatory (Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, para. 67). 94. Lastly, in accordance with general international law, the Inter-American Court does not act as an appellate court or a court for judicial review of rulings handed down by the