though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. Article 1. Obligation to Respect Rights The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. Article 2. Duty to Adopt Domestic Legal Provisions Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 94. The organs of the inter-American system have determined that the States Parties to the Convention have the obligation to provide effective judicial remedies for victims of human rights violations, which must be examined in accordance with the rules of due process of law. 104 The Inter-American Court has established the following: When establishing the international responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention, the substantial aspect of the dispute before the Court is not whether judgments or administrative decisions were issued at the national level or whether certain provisions of domestic law were applied with regard to the violations that are alleged to have been committed to the detriment of the alleged victims of the facts, but whether the domestic proceedings ensured genuine access to justice, in keeping with the standards established in the American Convention, to determine the rights that were in dispute.105 95. The Inter-American Court has found that under that under Article 8.1 of the Convention everyone has the right to be heard by a competent and impartial organ with due procedural guarantees, such as the possibility of presenting arguments and adducing evidence. The Court has also found that this provision of the Convention “means that the State must guarantee that the decision produced by the proceedings satisfies the end for which it was conceived. The latter does not mean that the right must always be granted, but rather that the capacity of the body to produce the result for which it was conceived be guaranteed.”106 96. In relation to Article 25.1 of the Convention, the Court has held that that provision ... includes an obligation for States Party to guarantee all persons under [their] jurisdiction access to an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. This effectiveness supposes that in addition to the formal existence of the remedies, they get results or responses to the violations of the rights contemplated in the Convention, in the Constitution or in laws. In this sense, remedies that because of the country’s general 104 IACHR, Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129 Doc. 4, September 7, 2007. par. 177. I/A Court H.R., I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, par. 106. 105 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, par. 107. 106 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, par. 122. 19