9 Review of the final judgment, i.e., the one delivered by the court of second instance, is also a possibility; in some cases there is a legal time frame in which review may be requested, in some cases not; the request for review is in the form of a challenge to review the judgment to test whether it was delivered in accordance with the law that was to be applied, the case being error in judicando and error in procedendo. In criminal law, there is another possibility, which is the extraordinary appeal, which authorizes, in a limited number of circumstances, reconsideration and eventual nullification of a conviction and sentence currently being served: proof that the person that the convicted person is said to have murdered is still alive; a finding that the public document that was the sole evidence upon which the conviction was based was false; conviction of two persons, in separate cases, when it was impossible that both committed the crime, and so on. Obviously, this exceptional remedy is not one of the ordinary remedies for challenging a definitive criminal conviction. Neither is the remedy by which one challenges the constitutionality of a law. 30. Here, we ought to ask ourselves what can be required of the appeal mentioned in Article 8(2)(h), from the standpoint of the mamimum protection of the individual’s rights and, therefore, in keeping with the principle of presumption of innocence to which the accused is entitled until a final judgment is handed down, and of the right to formal and material access to justice, which demands issuance of a “just” verdict (even if it is for conviction, although with a punitive content different from what the appropriate one seemed to be at first glance). Is this a limited review that could disregard factors that were truly relevant to determine the accused’ criminal responsibility? Ought we to content ourselves with a limited review, that examines only cerrtain aspects of the conviction, but must relegate others into some dark territory that cannot be entered, even though one might find there the motives and reasons that could prove the accused’ innocence? 31. The answer is obvious from the way in which the question is posed. The goal here is to protect the human rights of the individual, one of which is not to be convicted unless and until the commission of an offense punishable under criminal law has been proved and the accused’ guilt under the law has been proved. It is not merely a question of preserving the integrity of the process or the verdict. Therefore, recourse to a higher court or judge –which would have to outrank, in the area of competence and jurisdiction, the court whose decision is being challengedmust allow that higher court or judge to get into the merits of the case, examine the facts alleged, the defense’s counter-arguments, the evidence taken, the weighing of that evidence, the laws invoked and their application, even for such matters as identifying the punishment or measure (which includes the pertinent substitution), and whether that punishment is just given the severity of the crime, the legally protected interest affected, the culpability of the agent and other facts that go into determining what the punishment should be (extenuating or aggravating circumstances or other information that steers the court to a reasoned conclusion). 32. Obviously, those needs are not met with a narrow, “phantom” remedy, much less when the system offers no remedy at all, which some legal systems do not in the case of crimes regarded to be of much less importance and in regard to which court proceedings are very abbreviated. Affording the accused all the benefits of a substantive defense is the best way to ensure a just outcome, rather than rely on technicalities, which are hardly the best way to achieve justice. Therefore, to fully satisfy these needs, the system for appealing grievances to a higher court has to be adopted and expanded. The errors and shortcomings of an incompetent defense would be sorted out by the court, and justice will have been well served.