184. The Court has held that for there to be an effective remedy, it is not sufficient that it be provided by the Constitution or the law or that it be formally recognized, but rather that it be truly effective in order to establish whether there has been a violation of human rights and to provide that which is necessary to remedy the situation.259 Moreover, upon evaluating the effectiveness of the action before the national contentious-administrative jurisdiction,260 the Court has considered whether the decisions taken there contributed effectively to end the violation of rights, to ensure the non-repetition of the wrongful acts, and to ensure the free and full exercise of rights protected by the Convention.261 The Court will not assess the effectiveness of the appeals filed in regard to a possible resolution favorable to the interests of the alleged victim. 185. In this regard, the Court notes that the judicial appeals filed by Mr. López Mendoza failed in providing an effective and suitable answer to protect his right to be elected (supra para. 109) and that would safeguard the minimum requirements of the duty to establish cause in the proceedings that led to the sanctions of disqualification (supra para. 149), which is why it violated the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25(1), in relation with Articles 1(1), 8(1), 23(1)(b), and 23(2) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. López Mendoza. C. Equal protection before the law 1. Arguments of the parties 186. The Commission noted that “in its brief on the merits of the matter, Mr. López Mendoza argued, for the first time, the violation of Article 24 of the American Convention262 in virtue of considering that he had received discriminatory treatment regarding other persons who, in the past, were able to run for public office despite [the fact that] an administrative sanction of disqualification had been applied to their right to hold public office.” In this regard, the Commission specified that “it concluded in its Report on the Merits that said extreme had not been duly founded in this particular case and that it did not have sufficient elements to consider that the alleged facts amounted to that established” in the Article. 187. The representatives argued the alleged violation of equal protection before the law in the case of Mr. López Mendoza. In this sense, they noted two alleged facts that 259 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in State of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al., supra note 16, para.75, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 94. 260 Cf. Case of “Mapiripán Massacre” V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 210; Case of “Rochela Massacre” V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 217, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 21, para. 139. 261 Cf. Case of “Mapiripán Massacre”. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 260, para. 214; Case of “Rochela Massacre” V. Colombia, supra note 260, para. 219, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 21, para. 139. 262 Article 24 of the American Convention (Right to Equal Protection) establishes that: All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 70