A/HRC/8/4 page 8 recognizes the right to an effective remedy, but only with respect to the rights enshrined in the Covenant. Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights provides for the “right to simple and prompt recourse” in the event of violation of rights “recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention”. Thus there is always a reference to explicit recognition. However, case law has in practice interpreted the two rights as complementary, establishing that the proceedings in an effective remedy must observe the general guarantees of due process and that the available remedy must be simple and prompt. The monitoring bodies, when considering the admissibility of communications and deciding whether domestic remedies have been exhausted or not, have determined that a remedy must be real, not merely theoretical; be available to the person concerned; be capable of restoring the enjoyment of the impaired right; and ensure the effectiveness of the judgement. In the inter-American system there is considerable case law relating to the protection of procedural guarantees in respect of non-derogable rights during states of emergency. Similarly, the Human Rights Committee has extended non-derogability to cover the guarantees of due process set out in article 14 of the Covenant. Thus the requirement of competence, independence and impartiality of a tribunal is an absolute right that is not subject to any exception. 3. Right to equality before the courts 20. This right is enshrined in generic terms in article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Access should be guaranteed to all individuals, regardless of nationality or administrative status, in order to ensure their right to claim justice. This guarantee also prohibits any distinctions regarding access to courts and tribunals that are not based on law and cannot be justified on objective and reasonable grounds, thus excluding any restriction on the grounds of race, sex, language, religion, opinion, national or social origin, economic situation, birth or other condition, such as civil status.6 Access to justice should be unrestricted and effective. The first of these criteria refers to the prohibition of discrimination and coercion, and to conditions that favour admissibility of the action. Being effective means that the procedural channels should be such that the necessary legal assistance is provided and the remedies available are genuinely capable of meeting the desired objective. It is not just a matter of guaranteeing entry to the judicial process: equality of access must determine the entire conduct of that process. The Human Rights Committee has established that a situation in which an individual’s attempts to access the competent courts or tribunals are systematically frustrated de jure or de facto runs counter to the guarantee of article 14, paragraph 1, first sentence.7 6 CDH, Comunicación Nº 202/1986, Alto del Avellanal c. el Perú, párr. 10.2 (otorgando al marido el derecho a representar el patrimonio conyugal ante los tribunales, excluyendo así a la mujer casada del derecho de legitimación activa). Vid. también CDH, Observación general nº 18. No discriminación, párr. 7. 7 Communication No. 468/1991, Oló Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea, para. 9.4.