conditions or even because of specific conditions related to the case in question are illusory cannot be considered effective. This can be the case, for example, when their uselessness has been demonstrated in practice, due to a lack of means for executing rulings, or due to any other situation giving rise to a context of denial of justice. 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.107 97. The Inter-American Court has determined that for an effective remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the constitution or the 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.108 As regards the admissibility requirements of a judicial claim, the Court has found that: [t]o 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.109 98. The Commission finds that the four cases with which this report is concerned occurred in the context of the collective dismissals in Peru in the 1990s and, therefore, their characteristics are similar to those of the Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru110 examined by the Commission and the Inter-American Court, and those of the Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, examined by the Commission and currently before the Inter-American Court111. 99. In the former case, which, in turn, constituted the basis for the decision in the matter, the commission and the Inter-American court made general pronouncements on the context of collective dismissals and the absence of fair trial guarantees against those dismissals, although their findings were not limited to the particular circumstances of the dismissed congressional workers. 100. Indeed, the Inter-American Court noted that during the period described “numerous irregular dismissals took place in the public sector,” which was acknowledged “by the State as of 2001 when it enacted ‘laws and administrative provisions ordering a review of the collective dismissals in order to provide the employees who had been dismissed irregularly with the possibility of claiming their rights.’”112 101. The Court also said that “considers that States evidently have discretionary powers to reorganize their institutions and, possibly, to remove personnel based on the needs of the public service ... ; 107 I/A Court H.R., Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 235, par. 75. The references in the original have been omitted. 108 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. 109 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. 110 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_158_ing.pdf. See also, IACHR, Report No. 126/12, Case 12.214, Merits, Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya et al., Peru, November 13, 2012. 111 IACHR, Report No. 126/12, Case 12.214, Merits, Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya et al., Peru, November 13, 2012. 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. 108. 112 20