43 * * * The Court’s considerations 88. Article 25 of the American Convention establishes that: 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. 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. 89. This Court has established that the safeguard of the individual in the face of the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the State is the primary purpose of the international protection of human rights. In this respect, the inexistence of effective domestic remedies places the victim in a situation of defenselessness. Article 25(1) of the Convention has established, in broad terms the obligation of the States to provide to all persons within their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy to violations of their fundamental rights. It provides, moreover, for the application of the guarantee recognized therein not only to the rights contained in the Convention, but also to those recognized by the Constitution or laws57. In view of the foregoing, the absence of an effective remedy to violations of the rights recognized in the Convention is itself a violation of the Convention by the State Party58. 90. In this perspective, this Court has indicated that, for the State to comply with the provisions of this article, it is not enough that the recourses exist formally, but that they must be effective59; in other words, the persons must be offered the real possibility of filing a simple and prompt recourse in the terms of Article 25 of the Convention. This Court has repeatedly established that the existence of this type of guarantee “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, 57 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 45, para. 23. 58 Cf., Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 45, para. 24. 59 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 191; Cesti Hurtado case. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 125; and Paniagua et al. case. supra note 46, para. 164.