25 76. Article 25 of the Convention provides that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: […] c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 77. The Court has established that the formal existence of remedies is not sufficient; these must be effective; in other words, they must provide results or responses to the violations of rights included in the Convention.47 In this respect, the Court has stated that: […] those remedies that, owing to the general conditions of the country or even the particular circumstances of a case, are illusory cannot be considered effective. This may occur, for example, when there uselessness has been shown in practice, because the jurisdictional body lacks the necessary independence to decide impartially or because the means to execute its decisions are lacking; owing to any other situation that establishes a situation of denial of justice, as happens when there is unjustified delay in the decision.48 78. “[T]he safeguard of the individual in the face of the arbitrary exercise of the power of the State is the primary purpose of the international protection of human rights”49; such protection must be genuine and effective. 79. States have the responsibility to embody in their legislation and ensure due application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process of law before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or which lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations.50 However, State responsibility does not end when the competent authorities issue the decision or judgment. The State must also guarantee the means to execute the said final decisions. 80. In this respect, the Inter-American Court declared the violation of Article 25 of the Convention in “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, when it stated that the defendant State did not execute the judgments issued by the domestic courts for a long period of time.51 47 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 31, para. 121; “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 32, para. 126; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 39, para. 150. 48 Cf. “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 32, para. 126; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 39, para. 150; and Las Palmeras case, supra note 46, para. 58. 49 Cf. “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 32, para. 126; The Constitutional Court case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 89; and Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 174. 50 Cf. Cantos case, supra note 31, paras. 59 and 60; The case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 135; and Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 121. 51 Cf. “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 32, paras. 138 and 141.