This comprises (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against any act violating his fundamental rights recognized and guaranteed to him by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force 49. The Court observes that this clause enshrines the right to an effective remedy, which guarantees everyone the right to bring, before the national courts, an arguable grievance, that is, any alleged violation of a substantive or procedural right6 that is internationally protected.7 50. The Court recalls that in order to establish the violation of their right to an effective remedy, the Applicants rely on the various domestic procedures without specifying the precise nature of the violations. In effect, their claims are vague and general. At most, they described the various proceedings they initiated before the domestic courts. 51. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Applicants fail to establish the existence of any impediment, either factual or legal, which prevented them from bringing the complaints they raise before domestic courts. The Court emphasises that nothing in the record reveals the existence of such an impediment, which, moreover, is corroborated by the fact that the Applicants did indeed bring their case before competent domestic courts. 52. In any case, the mere fact that they did not win their case does not suffice to establish the alleged violation. 53. In light of the foregoing, the Court holds that the Respondent State did not violate the Applicants’ right to an effective remedy, protected by Article 7(1)(a) of the Charter. 6 See, ECHR, Kudla v. Poland, Judgment of 26 October 2000, §§ 151-156. See, ECHR, Powell and Rayner c. United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 February 1990, §§ 31-33; ECHR, Kazantzis v. Cyprus, inadmissibility decision of 7 August 2003, Communication No.972/2001, §6.6 ECHR, Faure v. Australia, findings of 31 October 2005, Communication No.1036/2001. 7 13