35 91. (j) Even if it were to be interpreted that the congressional employees had free access to the jurisdiction by way of a judicial recourse before the ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court, this would be insufficient to consider that the judicial guarantee imposed on the State by Article 25 of the Convention had been complied with. The mere formalities of a proceeding do not ensure the effectiveness of the recourse, since it is conceived as a means of obtaining effective judicial protection of human rights that requires a result; (k) The congressional employees had the right to the judicial authorities, including the highest instance in the country, the Constitutional Court, reviewing the merits of their complaint and making a thorough examination of the matter in order to obtain a decision that admitted their arguments and reinstated their rights or, to the contrary, rejected their claims, and (l) The situation that the alleged victims experienced is not an isolated fact or one that arose from the State’s intention of reorganizing one of its institutions. President Fujimori’s Government generated an environment of legal and institutional instability to facilitate the installation of the new regime by the absence of controls. Regarding Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: (a) The State denied the alleged victims their right to judicial guarantees and thereby violated the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention; (b) It is essential to examine or re-examine the legality of any decision that imposes on an individual an irreparable obligation or when this obligation affects fundamental rights and freedoms, in application of judicial guarantees extended to determining obligations of a workrelated nature; (c) The resolution that denied the review of the examinations by way of an administrative proceeding excluded the alleged victims from judicial protection by constituting a regulatory requirement for the admissibility of an action for the protection of constitutional rights, and (d) The resolution that denied the review of the examinations by way of an administrative proceeding excluded the victims from judicial protection and, furthermore, the ordinary proceeding to review the case was time-barred. The admission of either of these interpretations by the organs of the inter-American system would amount to eliminating the petitioners’ enjoyment of the right to protection and to judicial guarantees, contrary to the provisions of Article 29(a) of the Convention. 92. Regarding Article 1(1) of the Convention, the Commission alleged that the State failed to comply with its obligation to respect the rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention, and also to ensure and guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, because it had the obligation to organize the governmental structures