taken have effectively contributed to putting an end to a situation that violates rights, to ensure the non-repetition of harmful acts, and to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights protected by the Convention. 170 The foregoing, as already indicated, does not imply that the effectiveness of a remedy is evaluated based on whether it produces a favorable result for the victim (supra para. 171). 176. On December 4, 2002, Mr. Cuya filed a writ of amparo before the Specialized Civil Court of Lima, in which he raised the ineffectiveness and inapplicability of the effects of the agreement of the Plenary Council of the Judiciary and the decision of non-ratification and requested the reinstatement to the previous state of the effects of the aforementioned resolution and his restitution to the position of Specialized Civil Judge of the Northern Cone of Lima. On December 5, 2002, the court declared the lawsuit inadmissible, based on decisions of non-ratification of judges and prosecutors issued by the CNM being unable to be challenged or appealed, in accordance with article 142 of the 1993 Constitution. On December 16, 2002, the alleged victim filed an appeal against said decision before the Specialized Civil Judge of Lima, this was granted and the file was forwarded to the Third Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Lima and on June 21, March 2003 it annulled the decision that declared the claim inadmissible, but did not decide on the merits of the matter that should be considered. He filed an appeal for constitutional grievance before the Constitutional Court and on July 15, 2003, it declared the amparo action unfounded, arguing that the non-ratification was an act of non-confidence by the magistrate and did not require substantiation (supra paras. 86 and 87) 177. Similarly, the prosecutors, Mr. Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, were not ratified in their positions by Resolution No. 095-2001 of the CNM of July 13, 2001. However, due to normative changes of the CNM Regulation and legislative changes with the entry into force of the Constitutional Procedural Code on December 1, 2004 and the case law changes produced in 2005 in which the filing of the writ of amparo against the decisions of the CNM was allowed (supra para 79), the aforementioned alleged victims filed writs of amparo. 178. On November 12, 2006, Mr. Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado filed a writ of amparo before the Puente Piedra, Santa Rosa and Ancón Combined Court, which on December 12, 2006 was declared inadmissible on the grounds that “a constitutional action is inadmissible, having notice of writs that question definitive decisions of the National Council of the Judiciary in matters of dismissal and ratification of judges and prosecutors, which have been substantiated and with a prior hearing of the party concerned.” Said resolution added that Mr. Díaz “admits to having been interviewed in the process prior to his non-ratification, without question, having voluntarily submitted to said administrative process that cannot be questioned through the amparo process; consequently, he was granted the right of defense and due process as protected by the Political Constitution.” Said decision was appealed by the alleged victim, and on August 3, 2007, the Second Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Northern Lima declared the appeal inadmissible, indicating that he presented his claim after the period of 60 working days from the date of the impairment, and before a body not competent by reason of the territory. Lastly, Mr. Díaz filed an appeal for constitutional grievance before the Constitutional Court against the previous decision, which was declared invalid on December 19, 2007 because it had been filed after the deadline without being an ongoing impairment (supra paras. 97 and 98). 179. On December 11, 2006, Ms. Rodríguez Ricse filed a writ of amparo against the decision of non-ratification. On December 18, 2006, the Combined Court of Puente Piedra, Santa Rosa and Ancón declared the writ of amparo inadmissible. Ms. Rodríguez filed an appeal in which she requested repeal of the contested decision, on June 22, 2007, the First Civil Specialized Chamber of the Supreme Court of Northern Lima declared the appeal inadmissible, arguing the late submission of the writ of amparo. Finally, Ms. Rodríguez filed a constitutional grievance before the 170 Cf. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 252, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 101. 45