94. Regarding the right to appeal, both the Commission and the Court have held that it applies to punitive decisions.94 The IACHR stresses the importance of this right, as its purpose is to prevent a flawed ruling, containing errors unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests, from becoming final. 95 95. The Court says emphasized the need for domestic proceedings to ensure genuine access to justice, in order to determine whatever rights may be in dispute. 96 According to the Court, Article 25.1 of that instrument: includes an obligation for States Party to guarantee all persons under [their] jurisdiction access to an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. This effectiveness supposes that in addition to the formal existence of the remedies, they get results or responses to the violations of the rights contemplated in the Convention, in the Constitution or in laws. ... Thus the proceeding must tend toward the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling through the suitable application of that ruling. 97 96. Therefore, for and effective remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for in a law or that it be formally recognized, but rather it must be truly effecting in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress. 98 As regards the admissibility requirements of a judicial claim, the Court has found that: To ensure legal certainty, for the proper and functional administration of justice and the effective protection of human rights, the States may and should establish admissibility principles and criteria for domestic recourses of a judicial or any other nature. Thus, although these domestic recourses must be available to the interested parties and result in an effective and justified decision on the matter raised, as well as potentially providing adequate reparation, it cannot be considered that always and in every case the domestic organs and courts must decide on the merits of the matter filed before them, without verifying the procedural criteria relating to the admissibility and legitimacy of the specific recourse filed.99 97. In relation to labor matters, the European Court has held that states have a positive obligation to put in place tribunals with jurisdiction in the area of labor law to take cognizance of alleged violations of workers’ rights.100 Specifically, the European Court held that a person who had been dismissed 94 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C. No. 218, par. 179. See also: IACHR, Report No. 136/11, Case 12.474, Merits, Pacheco Tineo Family, October 31, 2011, par. 120. 95 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. July 2, 2004. Series C. No. 107, par. 158. See also: IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, November 18, 1997, pars. 261-262. 96 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C. No. 158, par. 107; and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C, No. 148, par. 365. 97 I/A Court H.R., Case Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2011. Series C. No. 235, par. 75. The references in the original have been omitted. 98 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C. No. 125, par. 61; Case of the “Five Pensioners”. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C. No. 98, par. 136; and The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C. No. 79, par. 113. 99 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C. No. 158, par. 126. 100 ECHR, Schütch v. Germany Application No. 1620/03. Judgment of December 23, 2010, para. 59. 19