opportunity to rule on the matter. In the same sense, it argued that the rejection of the cassation appeal was due to the failure to provide grounds for the appeal, which disputed no evidence or matters of fact, making it procedurally impossible for the Court to rule in view of the principle of confinement to the proceedings. Likewise, it alleged that Mr. Gorigoitía did not raise, in a timely manner before the domestic jurisdictional authorities, the claim regarding the violation of the right to a comprehensive review of the conviction, since the complainant alleged a violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention in his motion for reconsideration of dismissal of appeal for denial of the extraordinary federal appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The state argued that the courts must apply the doctrine established by the Supreme Court of the Nation in the "Casal ruling" in matters of review of a conviction, should they fail to do so, there is the immediate option of invoking federal jurisdiction. Likewise, it indicated that the state had never argued that the federal clause justified non-compliance with its international obligations, and therefore there is no violation of Article 28(2) of the Convention. B. Considerations of the Court 46. The Court notes that the dispute in this case surrounds whether the state is responsible for violating the right to appeal the ruling before a higher judge or court and the right to an effective judicial remedy as a result of the response of the domestic courts to the appeals filed by Mr. Gorigoitía’s defense attorney after his conviction for the crime of murder. Additionally, the Court is to rule on whether the legislation and practices in the province of Mendoza regarding cassation constituted a violation of articles 2 and 28(2) of the Convention. Based on the foregoing, the Court will evaluate the dispute in the following order: i) whether the response of the domestic courts to the remedies filed by Mr. Gorigoitía's defense team complied with the state's obligations set forth in articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, and ii) if the legal framework that regulated cassation appeals at the time of the facts constitutes a breach of the state’s duty to adopt provisions of domestic law in the terms of Article 2 of the Convention and the federal clause provided for in Article 28 of the same instrument. B.1 The right to appeal a conviction and the right to judicial protection of Mr. Gorigoitía 47. The Court has referred in its settled caselaw to the scope and content of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, as well as to the standards that must be met to ensure that the right to appeal a ruling before a higher judge or court is guaranteed. The Court has understood this right to consist of a minimum and fundamental guarantee that “must be respected as part of due process of law, so that a party may turn to a higher court for revision of a judgment that was unfavorable to that party’s interests [...].”72 Taking into account that the intention of judicial guarantees is to ensure that those involved in legal proceedings are not subjected to arbitrary decisions, the Court has interpreted it to mean that the right to appeal a judgment cannot be effective if it is not guaranteed with respect to everyone who is convicted,73 since the conviction is the manifestation of the exercise of the state’s punitive power.74 The Court has found the right to appeal a ruling to be one of the minimum guarantees that every person subjected to a criminal investigation and legal procedure has.75 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158, and Case of Amrheim et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 255. 73 Cf. Case of Mohamed vs. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255. paras. 92 and 93; and Case of Amrheim et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 255. 74 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 107, and Case of Amrheim et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 255. 75 Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 331, para. 171, and Case of Amrheim et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 256. 72 15