21 VI ARTICLE 25 (JUDICIAL PROTECTION) 22 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) 23 AND 2 (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS)24 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 77. In the instant case, the Inter-American Commission alleged the violation of Article 25 of the Convention, because it understood that at the time of the facts, the State did not provide the persons subject to its jurisdiction with a prompt, simple and effective remedy to protect political rights and that the application for amparo filed by the alleged victim in this case was not an effective remedy in the terms of the said Article. The representatives argued that the alleged victim filed an application for amparo because this was the only remedy that appeared to be admissible, given that, to achieve the enjoyment of the right claimed by the alleged victim, it was necessary to declare that an Article of the electoral law was unconstitutional, which was not within the powers of the Electoral Tribunal. Lastly, the State alleged that the action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen was an appropriate and effective remedy for the protection sought by the alleged victim, because the amparo was not admissible for claiming political rights. 78. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in general terms, the obligation of the States to guarantee an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate fundamental rights. When interpreting the text of Article 25 of the Convention, the Court has stated that the State’s obligation to provide a judicial remedy is not limited to the mere existence of the courts or the formal procedures, or even to the possibility of resorting to the courts, but that the remedies must be effective;25 in other words, they must provide the person with the real possibility of filing a remedy, in the terms of that provision. The existence of this 22 Article 25 of the Convention stipulates: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. 23 The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 24 Article 2 of the Convention establishes that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 25 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 191; Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 177; and Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 19, para. 77. See also 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.