contained in Article 8.2 h) of the Convention. Some of these minimum requirements are, for example, the filing of the appeal as such, since Article 8.2 h) does not require an automatic review or the regulation of a reasonable period of time during which it must be filed.49 Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, rejection of the appeals because of failure to meet formal requirements legally established or defined by judicial practice in a given region, can turn out to be a violation of the right to appeal a judgment.50 50. Below, the Commission shall analyze whether, in Mr. Gorigoitia’s trial, the guarantee envisaged in Article 8.2 h) of the American Convention has been respected, taking into account the applicable regulatory framework and the specificities of the appeals filed in this concrete case. 2. Analysis of the case 51. According to the established facts, the defense of Mr. Gorigoitia filed a cassation, extraordinary federal, and complaint appeal against the judgment of September 12, 1997, which ruled that he was responsible for the crime of manslaughter and sentenced him to 14 years prison. According to national criminal procedural legislation and the legislation of the Province of Mendoza, cassation is the remedy that is applicable to challenge a judgment of criminal conviction in a court of first instance. In that regard, this is the principal appeal that the IACHR must analyze in order to determine if it meets the requirements of the right enshrined in Article 8.2 h) of the Convention. 52. First of all, the Commission underscores that Article 474 of the CPPM regulates the two motives that can be alleged in a cassation appeal: failure to observe or erroneous application of substantive law: or the failure to observe procedural standards under certain circumstances. In that respect, the regulation itself confines the cassation appeal to both substantive and procedural errors of law. 53. Second, the Commission observes that this legal framework led to a judicial practice described in the section of established facts, recognized by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the federal sphere and which is applicable to the present case bearing in mind the convergence in the regulation for the cassation appeal in this area and in the Province of Mendoza, among other provinces. This practice consisted of interpreting, restrictively, the legal framework governing the cassation appeal, so that issues of fact and appraisal of evidence were excluded. 54. By virtue of the above, in general terms, there was a serious limitation in the law and in practice regarding the prospects for effectiveness of any allegation that did not fall within the purview of what had historically been considered as “reviewable” by means of a cassation appeal. 55. The Commission is not responsible for determining the possible questions that could have been asked in the present case if the restrictive factors had not been applied. As indicated by the Commission, “it is enough to determine that the alleged victims embarked on the appeals procedure under legal constraints as to what allegations they were able to make. (…) [A]n automatic exclusion of issues of fact or of evidence appraisal was in effect, thus doing away with any examination of the importance or nature of said issues in light of the concrete case. This exclusion is, in and of itself, incompatible with the comprehensive scope of the remedy as provided for in Article 8.2.h of the American Convention.”51 56. In any case, the limited scope of the cassation appeal was reflected in how these appeals were ruled in this concrete case. As concluded from the established facts, the cassation appeal filed by Mr. Gorigoitia’s defense incorporated a series of arguments in connection with the facts and whether or not they were in line with the willful intent of the perpetration of the crime of homicide. Arguments were also submitted in connection with the appraisal of the evidence conducted in the court of first instance. 49 IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Merits, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica, April 4, 2014, para. 188. 50 IACHR, Report No. 53/13, Case 12.864, Merits (Publication), Iván Teleguz, United States, July 15, 2013, para. 105 51 IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Merits, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica, April 4, 2014, para. 208. 12