Convention. VIII.3 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS94 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 112. The Commission indicated that the Civil Court of Esmeraldas, when denying the remedy of amparo requested by Mr. Mina Cuero, merely stated that the alleged violations did not exist, and that the decision of the Disciplinary Court was not subject to the remedy of amparo. Additionally, the Constitutional Court, when dismissing the claim of unconstitutionality, considered that the alleged victim had been given ample right to defense during the disciplinary process. It stated that the content of both rulings indicated that the judicial bodies did not conduct a comprehensive examination of the factual and legal aspects regarding the dismissal of Mr. Mina Cuero, nor did they provide judicial protection against the various violations committed against him. Consequently, it concluded that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8(2) (h) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same international instrument. 113. The representative explained that both the court that denied the remedy of amparo action filed, and the Constitutional Court in dismissing the claim of unconstitutionality, did not carry out a comprehensive examination of the process or analyze the factual and legal aspects regarding the dismissal of the alleged victim so that the latter did not have an effective remedy to challenge the decision that dismissed him from his position. He added that the judicial bodies that reviewed his arguments merely determined the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Court without addressing the alleged violated rights, which constituted a violation of Article 25 of the Convention. 114. The State indicated that Mr. Mina Cuero, according to the Law on Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction, which was also in force at the time of the events, "was fully able to file a subjective or full jurisdiction appeal before the competent judicial authority in Administrative Litigation;" however, "this appeal was never raised." Furthermore, even after the ruling of the Administrative Litigation Court, there was the possibility to appeal through cassation, a challenge that was also not filed. It indicated that there are no grounds to support the claim that the right to appeal was violated, as the alleged victim initiated the exercise of the remedy of amparo action without limitations of any nature. 115. He added that both through the appeal filed by Mr. Mina Cuero in the constitutional process of the remedy of amparo action and in the protection action he initiated, the provisions of Article 25 of the American Convention were fulfilled. The remedies were appropriate, simple, and expeditious, and the alleged victim had unrestricted access to them. B. Considerations of the Court 116. With regard to Article 25(1) of the Convention, the Court has pointed out that this provision requires States to guarantee to all persons under their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 95 This presupposes that, in addition to the formal existence of such remedies, they must ensure results or responses to Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 108.. 94 95