46. As for the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), it has repeatedly established that:42 Every person’s the right to appeal under article 14, paragraph 5, imposes on the State party a duty substantially to review, both on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence and of the law, the conviction and sentence, as long as the procedure allows for due consideration of the nature of the case. A review confined to only the formal or legal aspects of the judgment falls short of the requirements of the Covenant.43 47. Along the same line of what is established by the CCPR Human Rights Committee, the IACHR underscores that the right to appeal does not entail a new trial or a new “hearing,” as long as the court undertaking the review is not prevented from examining the facts of the case.44 What is required by the standard is the possibility of pointing out and securing a response to the errors that might have been made by the judge or court, without excluding a priori certain categories such as the facts and the appraisal and receipt of the evidence. The way and means whereby the review is conducted shall depend on the nature of the questions being discussed, as well as the specificities of the criminal procedures system in the State concerned.45 48. These standards governing the right to appeal a judgment were accepted by the InterAmerican Court in the case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. In particular, with respect to the scope of the review, the Court contended that, regardless of the appeal regime or system adopted by the States Parties and the name given to the means for challenging a conviction, to be effective it must consist of an adequate means to ensure rectification of an erroneous conviction.46 This requires the possibility of analyzing the factual, evidentiary, and legal questions on which the judgment being challenged is based, because in jurisdictional activities there is an interdependence between determinations of fact and the application of law, so that an erroneous determination of the facts entails a mistaken or improper application of the law. As a result, the causes for admissibility of an appeal must make it possible to exercise broad control over those aspects that are being challenged in the judgment of conviction.47 The Court also specified, along the same line as what the Commission has contended, that the appeal must respect minimum procedural guarantees, which under Article 8 of the Convention are relevant and necessary to resolve the grievances filed by the complainant, which does not mean that a new trial must be held.48 49. Furthermore, in terms of the appeal’s accessibility, the Commission considers that, at first, the regulation of some minimum requirements for the appeal’s admissibility is not incompatible with the law 42 The wording of Article 14.5 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) is substantially similar to that of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention; therefore the interpretations made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in connection with the contents and scope of this article are relevant as a guidelines for interpreting Article 8.2.h of the American Convention. 43 United Nations Human Rights Committee. Aliboev v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 985/2001, Decision of 18 October 2005; Khalilov v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 973/2001, Decision of 30 March 2005; Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia, Communication No. 623627/1995, Decision of 6 April 1998; and Saidova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 964/2001, Decision of 8 July 2004. 44 United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 “Article 14. Right to equality before tribunals and courts and to fair trial.” 2007, para. 48. 45 IACHR, Report No. 172/10, Case 12.561, Merits, César Alberto Mendoza et al. (Juveniles sentenced to life time imprisonment), Argentina, November 2, 2010, para. 189. 46 Inter-American Court. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 245. 47 Inter-American Court. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 100; Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 245. 48 Inter-American Court. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 101; Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 245. 11