22 Convention, may be relevant and necessary to resolve the alleged lower court error raised by the appellant, which does not mean necessarily that a new trial must be held.53 77. Additionally, as for the right to judicial protection, the Inter-American Court has established that safeguarding the individual from the arbitrary exercise of public power is the fundamental purpose of international human rights protection. Failure to provide for effective domestic remedies places individuals in a position of defenselessness.54 78. The Court has also consistently held that the protection provided for in said provisions is not confined to the rights enshrined in the American Convention, but also encompass claims before domestic courts pertaining to other rights enjoyed by individuals as recognized in the Constitution as well as in domestic law. The Court has ruled on said scope as follows: The terms of Article 25.1 of said instrument [the Convention] imply the obligation of the States to provide to all persons within their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy for violations of their fundamental rights and for the application of the guarantee recognized therein not only to the 55 rights contained in the Convention, but also to those recognized by the Constitution or laws. 79. The Court also has held that domestic remedies must be made available to the interested party, and result in an effective and justified decision on the matter raised, as well as potentially providing adequate reparation.56 80. In the instant case, the Commission notes that Mr. Zegarra Marín filed two appeals of the conviction, which as was found, constituted violations of the principle of the presumption of innocence. 81. Thus, he filed the motion to set aside the judgment (recurso de nulidad), which was the only remedy that was admissible to bring against the judgment of conviction handed down by the trial court at the time the facts took place. On December 17, 1997, this motion was ruled upon upholding the conviction that was being contested. The grounds provided by the court were confined to the following: WHEREAS: the defendants’ criminal responsibility has been proven as well as the commission of the crimes that are the subject of the preliminary investigation, the punishment imposed on them is lawful. 53 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 101; Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 245. 54 IA Ct of HR, Case of Claude Reyes. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151. Para. 129; IA Ct of HR, Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137. Para. 113; IA Ct of HR, Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. Para. 183. 55 IA Ct of HR, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Para. 122; IA Ct of HR, Case of Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151. Para. 128; IA Ct. of HR, Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127. Para. 167. 56 IA Ct of HR, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Para. 126.