the remedy being ineffective, because the Constitutional Court did not refer to the merits of the matter: namely, the obligation of the Guatemalan State to take sustainable steps to ensure that people living with HIV received comprehensive treatment. On this basis, the representatives argued that the State was responsible for violating the rights contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 167. The State argued that the ruling on the application for amparo complied with the judicial elements of simplicity, promptness and effectiveness, and it was decided on the basis of due process of law and the evidence provided by the parties. It also indicated that, if the presumed victims did not agree with the Constitutional Court’s decision, they should have had recourse to the pertinent procedural remedies. Regarding the assertion that the Constitutional Court’s ruling had not decided the merits of the matter, the State argued that it had adopted an exceptional measure by allocating a special appropriation of 500,000.00 quetzals to the Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistances to respond to the request. The State also argued that, according to the Inter-American Court’s criteria, the obligation to provide the reasoning for a ruling does not require a detailed answer to each and every argument of the parties, but can vary according to the nature of the decision and that, in each case, it is necessary to analyze whether the said guarantee has been met; also, the requirement that the ruling should be reasoned, does not mean that the merits of the matter must be analyzed B. Considerations of the Court 168. The Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to ensure, to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 198 This effectiveness supposes that, in addition to the formal existence of the remedy, it leads to results or responses to the violation of the rights recognized in either the Convention, or their Constitution and laws.199 Accordingly, those remedies that, owing to the general situation in the country or even due to the particular circumstances of a specific case, are illusory cannot be considered effective. 200 This may occur, for example, when their ineffectiveness has been revealed by practice, because the Judiciary lacks the necessary independence to decide with impartiality, or owing to any other situation that constitutes a denial of justice.201 Thus, proceedings should be aimed at implementation of the protection of the right recognized in the legal ruling by the appropriate application of that ruling.202 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 251. 198 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 257. 199 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348. para. 208. 200 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24, and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348. para. 208. 201 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104. para. 73, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 154. 202 59