55 protection of human rights, but also the obligation to ensure the due application of these remedies by their judicial authorities in proceedings that respect adequate guarantees, 245 and these must be conducted in keeping with the rules of due process of law.246 Thus, an effective remedy means that the competent authority’s analysis of a judicial remedy cannot be reduced to a mere formality; rather it must examine the reasons cited by the plaintiff and rule on them expressly.247 Accordingly, this effectiveness supposes that, in addition to the formal existence of remedies, these must provide results or answers to the violations of rights established in either the Convention or the Constitution or by law. 177. The Court will now analyze whether, based on his dismissal, Mr. Lagos del Campo was guaranteed access to justice in relation to the rights alleged at the appeals stage. 178. The Court recalls that, in light of the decision of the trial judge of June 25, 1991, that the dismissal was unjustified, Ceper-Pirelli filed an appeal before the Second Labor Court to revoke the first instance judgment.248 That same day, the Second Labor Court heard the oral submissions of the company’s representatives. Subsequently, the company presented two briefs on June 25 and July 3, 1991, which were processed on July 15, 1991. Mr. Lagos del Campo received the respective notification on July 23, 1991. 179. Mr. Lagos del Campo submitted his answer to those briefs to the Second Labor Court on August 1, 1991.249 However, his brief was only processed by the Labor Court on August 9, 1991, after it had delivered judgment deciding to revoke the first instance judgment (August 8, 1991). 180. In this regard, the Court reiterates that States have the obligation to ensure the effectiveness of the said remedies with adequate guarantees and with rules to ensure due process of law (supra, para. 76). It should be pointed out that, pursuant to article 233 of the 1979 Peruvian Constitution, the proper administration of justice required “the statement of the reasons for the decisions, in all instances, that expressly mention[ed] the applicable law and the grounds that substantiate[d] them.”250 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 177, and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A review of the standards adopted by the inter-American system of human rights, para. 17. 245 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, footnote 12, para. 91, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, supra, para. 183. 246 Cf. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 96, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 179. 247 The company argued that the statements included in “La Razón” corresponded to Mr. Lagos del Campo, because he had not attributed those words to the interviewer when answering the company’s letter outlining the charges; he had merely argued that they had been made in the exercise of his constitutional right to freedom of expression and in his capacity as president of the Electoral Committee (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report 9 and 10, folios 33 to 41). 248 249 Cf. Brief in answer to the appeal addressed by Mr. Lagos del Campo to the Second Labor Court of Lima. August 1, 1991, File No. 839-91. Annexes to the communication of the petitioners dated July 23, 1998 (evidence file, ff. 43 to 45). In this brief, he indicated that, in both the exculpatory letter and in the brief of the complaint, he had stated that he was not the author of the interview; consequently, the responsibility for the publication of the interview corresponded to the journalist and Director of “La Razón.” Regarding the brief filed by the company on June 25, 1991, Mr. Lagos del Campo mentioned that the company had attributed to him the authorship of words that had not been published in the interview in “La Razón.” Cf. Constitution of Peru July 12, 1979. “Article 233. Proper administration of justice: (4) The statement of the reasons for the decisions, in all instances, that expressly mentions the applicable law and the grounds that substantiate them.” Congress of the Republic of Peru. Law 24514. Law on the right to job security. June 4, 1986 (evidence file, ff. 33bis to 38bis.) “Article 3. The workers referred to in art. 2 may only be dismissed for just cause indicated in this law, duly stating the reasons.” 250