46 does it imply that this control must always be exercised, without considering other procedural and substantive criteria regarding the admissibility and legitimacy of these types of action. * * * 129. In conclusion, the Court observes that this case took place within the framework of practical and normative impediments to a real access to justice and a general situation of absence of guarantees and ineffectiveness of the judicial institutions to deal with facts such as those of the instant case. In this context and, in particular, the climate of legal uncertainty promoted by the norms that restricted complaints against the evaluation procedure and the eventual dismissal of the alleged victims, it is clear that the latter had no certainty about the proceeding they should or could use to claim the rights they considered violated, whether this was administrative, under administrative-law, or by an action for amparo. 130. In this regard, in Akdivar v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights found, inter alia, that the existence of domestic recourses must be sufficiently guaranteed, not only in theory, but also in practice; to the contrary, they would not comply with the required accessibility and effectiveness. It also considered that the existence of formal recourses under the legal system of the State in question should be taken into account, and also the general political and legal context in which they operate as well as the personal circumstances of the petitioners or plaintiffs.78 131. In this case, the existing domestic recourses were not effective, either individually or as a whole, to provide the alleged victims dismissed from the Peruvian Congress with an adequate and effective guarantee of the right of access to justice in the terms of the American Convention. 132. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the 257 individuals listed in the Appendix to this judgment. IX ARTICLE 26 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION (PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS) The Commission’s arguments 133. The Commission did not allege failure to comply with Article 26 of the Convention. 78 Cf. Eur. Court. HR. Akdivar and others v. Turkey, judgment (Preliminary Objections) of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV Court (Grand Chamber), paras. 66 and 69. See also, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp. 11-12, para. 27; Johnston and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 22, para. 45, and Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment (Preliminary Objections) of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, pp. 18, para. 35.