28 93. It is important to once again note that the State Parties to the American Convention have wide margins to comply with these general obligations. This approach has been constant in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal by indicating that what is important is the observance of “effectiveness” in terms of the principle of the effet utile “and this means that the State must take such measures as may be necessary to actually comply with the provisions of the Convention”;141 as such, the Inter-American Court has considered it necessary to reaffirm that such obligation, by its very nature, constitutes an obligation of results.142 94. Therefore, it can be said that integration at the normative level, but especially at the interpretative level in the international and domestic domain contributes to the consolidation of an integrated Inter-American System, which allows an intense dialogue between all judicial practitioners, especially with judges of all hierarchies and subject-matters, which inextricably produces the basis for the consolidation of the legal means to guarantee the effectiveness of fundamental rights and the creation of a ius constitutionale commune in the area of human rights in our region. IV. THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN THIS CASE A) On the arguments of Mr. Alibux before the High Court of Justice of Suriname and the decision of the Inter-American Court 95. In this case, Mr. Alibux argued before the High Court of Justice of Suriname, the incompatibility of Article 140 of the Constitution of Suriname and the Indictment of Political Office Holders Act with the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and Article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, for establishing criminal proceedings in a single instance. Given this clear statement of incompatibility with the Convention, the High Court of Suriname that heard the criminal proceedings, through an Interlocutory Resolution, responded that while such international treaties have binding effects on the State, they have no direct legal effect, since a domestic court cannot establish processes of appeal that are not recognized by the law. 96. In its Judgment, the Inter-American Court declared the violation of Article 8(2)(h) precisely because no second instance was provided. Although the foregoing was established years later in the amendment to the aforementioned Indictment of Political Office Holders Act in 2007 through the creation of a process of appeal, the violation materialized at the inability to appeal the conviction in 2003; moreover, the victim had already served his sentence prior to this amendment. The Inter-American Court held that by declaring the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, it did not deem it necessary to issue an additional ruling regarding the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention “as the consequences of the damages described in his allegations are subsumed in the considerations”143 regarding Article 8(2)(h); that is, the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection “is encompassed within the aforementioned violation of the right to appeal the judgment. It was precisely the absence of a remedy under the terms of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, which would have guaranteed the possibility of challenging the 141 Case of Comunidad Indígena Yakye Axa V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C, No. 125, para. 101. 142 Cf. Case of Caesar V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 93. 143 Para. 119 of the Judgment.