asked the Constitutional Court to issue a request for helpful information in order to obtain the applicants’ medical records because they were all living with HIV, and to declare the application for amparo admissible, ordering the State to enact public policies that ensured the collective right to life of people living with HIV and the distribution of antiretroviral drugs, without any discrimination, in the country’s hospitals and health centers (supra para. 61). 174. Finally, on January 29, 2003, the Constitutional Court decided that the remedy filed by the applicants was unsubstantiated, because the conduct described in the application had ceased, and therefore declared that the application was “simply inadmissible.” The Constitutional Court noted that, in a memorandum of October 30, 2002, the applicants had stated that the resources offered by the President had been transferred (supra para. 62). 175. Based on the above, the Court will proceed to assess whether the proceedings of the Constitutional Court constituted a violation of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection of the presumed victims. Specifically, the Court will determine whether the remedy filed before the Constitutional Court: (i) complied with the requirements of appropriateness and effectiveness, and (ii) was decided within a reasonable time. B.1. Appropriateness and effectiveness of the application for amparo 176. First, the Court must determine whether the Constitutional Court’s ruling met the requirements of appropriateness and effectiveness in keeping with the Convention’s standards. In this regard, the Court recalls that the right to an effective remedy results in the obligation of the competent authority to examine the reasons cited by a plaintiff, to rule expressly on them, and to verify the execution of its decisions. However, this obligation does not mean that the effectiveness of a remedy is measured by virtue of it producing a favorable result for the plaintiff. The State obligation to ensure this right is an obligation of means or conduct, so that, in this case, the fact that the Constitutional Court did not arrive at the legal conclusion desired by the plaintiffs does not constitute per se a violation of the right of access to justice. Nevertheless, the Court recalls that, under Article 8(1) of the Convention, the competent authorities are obliged to provide the reasons for their decisions (supra para. 171). 177. The Court notes that, in its ruling of January 29, 2003, the Constitutional Court merely analyzed whether it could be considered that the agreement of October 30, 2002, had put an end to the contested act, insofar as it had constituted a response by the President to the plaintiffs’ request. In this regard, this Court notes that the Constitutional Court did not take into consideration that, even though the act contested by the presumed victims consisted in the omissive conduct of the President in relation to their petition, the plaintiffs also claimed that the absence of medical treatment jeopardized their right to life and to health owing to the lack of access to antiretroviral drugs. Accordingly, this Court notes the inadequacy of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, because it was not sufficient that it merely rule on the President’s failure to respond to the plaintiffs’ request; it was also necessary that it rule on the central aspect that led to the filing of the application for amparo, which was the risk that existed to the plaintiffs’ right to health and life owing to the lack of access to medical treatment. 178. The Court also notes that the Constitutional Court did not justify why it considered that the measure taken by the President to allocate five hundred thousand quetzals for the medical care of people living with HIV was sufficient to consider that the underlying constitutional question raised had ceased. As mentioned previously, the presumed victims were not only dissatisfied with the President’s failure to answer their letter, but, 62