27 Moreover, time and time again the Court has held that the guarantee of an effective remedy “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also of the Rule of Law in a democratic society as per the Convention”97 and that for the State to be in compliance with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, it is not enough that the recourses exist formally, but that they must be effective;98 in other words, the persons must be offered the real possibility of filing a simple and prompt recourse.99 Any law or measure that obstructs or prevents persons from availing themselves of the recourse in question is a violation of the right of access to the courts, in the manner upheld in Article 25 of the American Convention. 53. The claim that Mr. Cantos filed with Argentina’s Supreme Court totaled 2,780,015,303.44 pesos (two billion, seven hundred eighty million, fifteen thousand and three hundred three pesos and forty-four cents), the equivalent of the same amount in United States dollars. Under Argentine law, the fee at time of filing was three percent (3%) of the total amount of relief being claimed. The filing fee is the sum of money that every person filing suit in court must pay to have access to the courts. Under Argentine law, the filing fee is a flat percentage, and there is no maximum filing fee. In the case sub judice, that three percent (3%) represents 83,400,459.10 pesos (eighty-three million, four hundred thousand, four hundred fifty-nine pesos and ten cents), or the equivalent of the same amount in United States dollars. This sum of money has not been paid thus far. But Mr. Cantos owes still more; he also owes the fine levied against him for failure to pay the filing fee. Because the filing fee was not paid within five days, that fine is fifty percent (50%) of the filing fee, or 41,700,229.50 (forty-one million seven hundred thousand two hundred twenty-nine dollars and fifty cents), the equivalent of the same figure in United States dollars. (supra 43.n). 54. The question this Court must decide in the case sub judice is whether the application of the law and the resulting determination of a filing fee of 83,400,459.10 (eighty-three million, four hundred thousand four hundred fifty-nine pesos and ten centavos, equivalent to the same amount in United States dollars) are in keeping with Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, concerning the right of access to the courts and the right to a simple and prompt recourse. The State’s arguments on this point are that the amount fixed is the amount prescribed by law, a law whose purpose is to discourage reckless lawsuits; that the amount is proportional to the amount of relief sought in the claim, that it is not a confiscatory percentage, and that 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, par. 23. 97 Cantoral Benavides Case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, par. 163. Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin Case, supra note 5, par. 163; Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, par. 101; and The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 234. 98 Cf., Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, par. 186; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 96, paragraphs 111-113; and Constitutional Court Case, supra note 8, par. 90. 99 Cf. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, supra note 96, par. 112; Ivcher Bronstein Case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 134; and Constitutional Court Case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, par. 90. See also, European Court of Human Rights, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 3 April 2001, paragraphs 122 and 131.