43 favor of the alleged victim were ineffective. In this respect, the Court has indicated that “[t]hose recourses that, due to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances of any given case, prove illusory, cannot be considered effective.”89 Accordingly, the State also violated Article 7(6) of the American Convention, in keeping with Article 25 thereof, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia. 117. The Court has also established that it is not sufficient that the recourses exist formally, but they must provide results or responses to the human rights violations, in order to be considered effective. In other words, all persons must have access to a simple and rapid recourse before competent judges or courts that protect their fundamental rights.90 This guarantee “is one of the basic mainstays, not only of the American Convention, but also of the rule of law in a democratic society, in the sense set forth in the Convention.”91 118. With regard to the rights embodied in Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has established, inter alia, based on Article 8(1), that all the requirements that “are designed to protect, to ensure or to assert the entitlement to a right or the exercise thereof” must be complied with; in other words, the conditions necessary to ensure the adequate representation or management of the interests or claims of those whose rights or obligations are under judicial consideration.92 119. As regards the instant case, this implies that, as a result of the complaint filed by the victim’s immediate family, the State should have conducted a genuine, impartial and effective investigation to clarify the facts relating to the abduction, detention and torture to which Maritza Urrutia was subjected and, in particular to identity and punish those responsible. 120. In relation to the guarantees contained in Article 8(2) and 8(3) of the American Convention, the Court observes that although it appears that they are limited to the protection of persons subject to judicial proceedings (Article 8(2)) or found guilty during the proceeding (Article 8(3)), the Court considers that they must be respected in proceedings or procedures before or accompanying the judicial proceedings, which, should these guarantees not be respected, could have an unfavorable and unjustified impact on the juridical status of the person in question. 121. The foregoing leads us to consider that, in this case, the said Articles 8(2) and 8(3) of the Convention have been violated, because the victim was obliged to incriminate herself in the context of procedures that might have entailed unfavorable procedural consequences. 89 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 121; “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 14, para. 126; and Las Palmeras case. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 58. 90 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 121; Cantos case. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 52 and the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001, para. 111. 91 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 121; Cantos case, supra note 90, para. 52; and the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 90, para. 112. 92 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 14, para. 124; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 147; and The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 118.