violations of the rights established in the Convention, the Constitution, or by law. The Court has established that for an effective remedy to exist, it must be formally established. This means that the remedy must be suitable for combating the violation, and its application by the competent authority must be effective. This does not imply that the effectiveness of the recourse should be evaluated on whether it produces a result favorable to the complainant.96 117. From the procedural records, it is noted that Mr. Mina Cuero filed a remedy of amparo appeal in December 2000 against the Disciplinary Court's resolution ordering his dismissal. In his appeal, he argued, among other issues, the violation of his right to a defense. The action was dismissed by the Third Civil Court of Esmeraldas. Additionally, as a result of the appeal filed by the alleged victim, the Constitutional Court declared the abandonment of the action due to the unjustified absence of the plaintiff at the public hearing convened during the remedy of the amparo process. 118. Subsequently, in 2001, Mr. Mina Cuero, with a favorable report from the Ombudsman, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the General Order that had provided for his dismissal from the police force. In August of the same year, the Constitutional Court dismissed the lawsuit, considering, inter alia, that the alleged victim had been granted "sufficient right to defense" during the disciplinary procedure. 119. Lastly, in June 2010, Mr. Mina Cuero filed a protection action, alleging violations of the rights to due process and judicial protection, among other issues. Given this, the Second Court of Criminal Guarantees of Esmeraldas dismissed the proposal. Additionally, on appeal, the Single Chamber of the Provincial Court of Justice of Esmeraldas upheld the ruling, arguing that it did not perceive any violation of the right to defense. 120. The aforementioned indicates that the alleged victim filed three constitutional legal actions with the purpose of challenging the imposed dismissal sanction, presenting a set of arguments, including the reiterated violation of his right to defense. This Court observes, from the reading of the resolutions issued regarding the filed judicial appeals, that the different jurisdictional bodies that examined them did not conduct a thorough examination of the matter submitted to their consideration in order to issue, through sufficient reasoning, a response to the specific claim made by the interested party. 121. Indeed, initially, the Third Civil Court of Esmeraldas, in its judgment dated January 18, 2001, merely stated that the remedy of amparo was inadmissible and that the interested party had not specified the names of the members of the Disciplinary Court, without providing reasoning covering the analysis required under the argument. Moreover, the Constitutional Court, in its appellate decision on March 16, 2001, rejected Mr. Mina Cuero's claim, based on his absence from an initial hearing scheduled during the constitutional process, without considering that the lower court had convened a second hearing within the same process, which was duly conducted. 122. Furthermore, on August 14, 2001, the Constitutional Court once again rendered a decision, this time regarding a lawsuit of unconstitutionality filed by Mr. Mina Cuero, which was dismissed. For this purpose, the Constitutional Court considered that the alleged victim had enjoyed "sufficient right to defense" since he had appeared at the hearing before the Disciplinary Court accompanied by his defense attorney, and during that proceeding, various 96 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States 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 Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 108.