53. Similarly, this right is provided for in Article 2(3)(a) of the ICCPR, Article 8 of the UDHR, Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention. 34. These standards, on the one hand, recognize that everyone has the right to bring his/her case before a competent court in the event of a violation of his/her fundamental rights and, on the other, impose an obligation on States to create effective structures so that citizens can defend their fundamental rights in the event of a violation. 55. Regarding this right, this Court wrote in the case AGRILAND CO. LTD. v. REPUBLIC OF COTE D'IVOIRE, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/15, that: "(...) It can be deduced from these provisions that the right to an effective remedy before the national courts implies the opportunity available to everyone to defend their case before the national courts, which presupposes that the State must establish effective and efficient judicial structures before which every citizen can defend their case." (See §50). 56. Likewise, this Court in the case, MONSIEUR AND MONSIEUR ISSIAGA BANGOURA IBRAHIM SORU TOURE v. LA REPUBLIQUE DE GUINEE, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUG/03/16, § 87 stated that: “(...) That an effective remedy is one that allows its author not only to present his petition to the competent authority (judicial or administrative), but also to obtain from it a decision that can be concretized in the facts.” (See also case AMINATA DIANTOU DIANE v. REPUBLIC OF MALL, Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/14/18, para. 42). 37. Therefore, it is this Court’s understanding that the right to an effective remedy is one that allows the Applicant not only to seize the competent authority (judicial or administrative), but also to obtain from it a decision materialized in the facts. 15 aS