free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1(1)). 214 142. The Court has also pointed out that States have the responsibility to embody in their legislation and ensure full application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process of law before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or which lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations. 215 The Court has likewise established that for a State to comply with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, it is not sufficient for such remedies to exist formally, but that these must be effective, 216 that is to say, there must provide results or answers to the violations of rights enshrined in the Convention, in the Constitution or in the law. 217 The Court has reiterated that this obligation implies that the remedy must be appropriate to combat the violation and that it must be applied effectively by the competent authorities. 218 143. In this respect, the Court emphasizes that reference has been made to several general irregularities that would affect the aforementioned judicial guarantees. 219 The representatives alleged that these irregularities relate to the evidence produced regarding the possession and use of firearms and drugs (inter alia, some expert opinions and a sodium rhodizonate test), and other items of evidence furnished in the initial statements by the victims. The Court deems it appropriate to review the final conclusions of the judicial bodies regarding these issues. 144. As regards the controversies over the weapons, the Court notes that the judgment issued by the Second Collegiate Court rejected each of the arguments put forward by the defense counsel of the victims indicating, inter alia, that: 214 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 213, para. 91; Case of the “Las Dos Erres" Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C N° 211, para. 104; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 190. 215 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala; supra note 29, para. 237; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 182; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 166. 216 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Art. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 182; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 166. 217 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra note 216, para. 23; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 182; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 166. 218 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C N° 103, para. 117; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 182; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 166. 219 In their statements before the Court, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel emphasized that they were not committing any crime at the time of the arrest. In particular, Mr. Montiel stated that he and his wife arrived at the home of Mr. Cabrera García because they were inviting the public to a demonstration and, at the same time, selling clothing. “On May 2, 1999, I was […] outside the house, talking to an old man who [...] was 82 years, [his] wife [...] was also chatting amicably at that moment [...]. [He] did not see that people were armed and he only [saw] the soldiers coming [there] firing their weapons [...] he [did] not realize that they were soldiers, because soldiers usually arrive or used to arrive at a community and identify themselves; they did not identify themselves with words, but with shots, they ran and suddenly, a bullet hit [...] Salomé Sanchez Ortiz […]. [He] wanted to be clear [that] they never had weapons, because […] they are [not] fighting against life; to carry a weapon would imply an intention to attack someone [...].” Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores at the public hearing, supra note 177. Moreover, Mr. Cabrera García stated in his affidavit that "the soldiers arrived firing their weapons, then everyone ran.” Cf. Affidavit rendered by Mr. Teodoro Cabrera García, supra note 147, page 1192. 56