nationality, the actions of the Acting Federal Judge did not constitute a violation of Article 20 of the American Convention. 104. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 9 and 20 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ms. Raghda Habbal. VII-2 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties and observations of the Commission 105. The Commission found that in the instant case the right to judicial guarantees was violated in both the administrative proceedings that led to the revocation of the residence permits, and the judicial proceedings that deprived Ms. Raghda Habbal of Argentine nationality. Regarding the administrative proceedings, it noted that the fact that the people affected did not take part and were not notified of Resolution 1088 meant that they were unable to contest the decision in the courts, which affected their right to file an appeal before competent judges or courts. In the case of the judicial proceedings that revoked Ms. Habbal’s Argentine citizenship, the Commission found that within the framework of the appeals filed, no effective protection was provided for the rights violated in the process of revoking her nationality. Therefore, the Commission held that Argentina had violated the right to judicial protection of Raghda Habbal and her daughters contained in Article 25 of the American Convention read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. 106. The representatives alleged that the State had violated the right to judicial protection (Article 25 read in conjunction with Article 8(1) of the Convention). Firstly, because there was no opportunity to question the validity of Resolution 1088 at the administrative level or, subsequently, to seek judicial redress. The representatives argued that in this case there was no adequate remedy. Secondly, they alleged that the federal civil proceedings for revocation of citizenship were notified incorrectly. The invalid notification, to which the public defender and the private legal representatives drew attention, was a violation of Article 25. Thirdly, they maintained that, since it was based on an administrative resolution that, as the courts confirmed, was invalid, the result was also invalid. The representatives argued that Resolution 1088 could not be used to commence proceedings. However, the judgment revoking Ms. Habbal’s citizenship and making her a foreigner once again was delivered in a lower court and confirmed by the Federal Court, and every possible appeal was rejected, making the decisions final. The representatives concluded, therefore, that there had been a failure to respect both the right to be heard and to judicial protection under the Convention. 107. The State rejected the conclusions of the Commission and the representatives regarding the absence of effective judicial remedies. It maintained that the arguments presented were not based on an independent violation of rights, as it was claimed that rights were violated according to points of law presented regarding other rights. It also argued that the fact that the appeals were unsuccessful did not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of the right to judicial protection or due process. It held that, for that to be established, it had to be shown that there were obstacles to the filing of appeals or the exercise of the defense, that the judicial authorities had been dismissive of the alleged violations, or that the decision was arbitrary, which did not occur in the instant case. They explained that Ms. Habbal had had the opportunity to ascertain information about the grounds and reasons for the annulment 35