57 judicial appeal – which contests constitutional rights such as job security and the right to due process – cannot be reduced to a mere formality and omit arguments submitted by the parties, because it must examine their reasons and rule on them pursuant to the standards established by the American Convention.255 185. Third, Mr. Lagos filed another appeal for annulment (1993) before the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, which declared that the judgment of the Fifth Civil Chamber was valid. In its decision of March 15, 1993, the Chamber merely indicated “that, pursuant to the arguments of the [Supreme] Prosecutor [for Administrative Disputes, and taking into account] his reasoning, [it] declare[d] that the judgment was valid.” The prosecutor’s opinion indicated that “the judicial decisions of the Labor and Labor Communities Jurisdiction that are final and enforceable have the authority of res judicata”; therefore, to review such a decision would entail reviving a defunct proceeding and, consequently, an infringement of res judicata. In this regard, the Court notes that, according to this decision, following an appeal in a labor matter, there was no possibility of reviewing or contesting key aspects of the final decision. 186. Fourth, after his application for amparo was rejected in 1992, Mr. Lagos del Campo continued filing appeals. Following the establishment of the Constitutional Court in 1996, he requested that the amparo proceedings be raised before that court, but the Third Specialized Civil Chamber declared his request inadmissible, and indicated that he should have filed a cassation appeal within 15 days of the rejection (August 3, 1992). 187. In this regard, the Court notes that, when the application for amparo was rejected, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees had been suspended, owing to the dismissal of the justices by Decree Law No. 25422 of April 9, 1992.256 Consequently, the victim could not be required to exhaust a remedy that, at the time of the facts, was not available or that it would be illusory to exhaust, because the court was not functioning (Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention257). 188. The Court recalls that the inexistence of an effective remedy for violations of the rights recognized in the Convention constitutes a breach of this instrument by the State Party. Thus, it should be emphasized that, for such a remedy to exist, it is not enough that it is established by the Constitution or the law or that it is formally admissible; rather it must be truly appropriate to establish whether a violation of human rights has been committed and to provide the necessary means to remedy this. Those remedies that, owing to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances of a case, are unrealistic cannot be considered effective. 258 189. It is relevant to mention that the penalty established in this case was the maximum established by labor legislation: justified or legal dismissal, in which the sanction terminated the individual’s status as a worker. In other words, he was expelled from a specific category and deprived of a fundamental right that, at times, is even essential for survival and the realization 255 Cf. Case of Duque v. Colombia. supra, para. 96, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, supra, para. 233. See, for example, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra, para. 89.2. “On April 5, 1992, President Fujimori broadcast the “Manifesto to the Nation” in which he stated, inter alia, that he considered that he had “the responsibility to assume an exceptional approach to try and accelerate the process of […] national reconstruction and ha[d] therefore, […] decide[d] […] to temporarily dissolve the Congress of the Republic[, …] to modernize the public administration, and to reorganize the Judiciary completely.” 256 257 Article 46(2). The provisions of paragraphs 1.a and 1.b of this article shall not be applicable when: a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra para. 89, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. supra, para. 233; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), OC-9/87, supra, paras. 23 and 24. 258