39. The Provincial Supreme Court added that the grievances on which the extraordinary appeal is based must refer to the court of second instance and not to the first “regardless of the defects it contains.” The opinion of the Prosecutor General was not mentioned in this ruling. 40. In view of the dismissal of the extraordinary appeal, the defense of the alleged victim filed, with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, a complaint appeal.26 On August 6, 1998, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled that the extraordinary appeal was inadmissible and, as a result, dismissed the complaint.27 V. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court28 and right to judicial protection29 1. General considerations on the right to appeal a judgment 41. The right to appeal a judgment before a different higher-ranking judge or court is a basic guarantee in the framework of due process of law, whose ultimate purpose is to avoid consolidating a situation of injustice.30 According to inter-American jurisprudence, the goal of this right is to make it possible for an adverse judgment to be reviewed by a judge or court that is different and higher-ranking31 and to prevent the final consolidation of a decision that was adopted with defects and contains errors that might lead to undue harm to the interests of a person.32 Due process of law cannot be effective without the right to defense in a trial or the opportunity to defend oneself against a judgment on the basis of adequate review.33 42. The Court has contended that “the second court ratification [doble conforme], expressed by means of access to an appeal that grants the possibility for a comprehensive review of a judgment of conviction, confirms the principle and grants greater credibility to the State’s jurisdictional action and, at the same time, provides greater security and safeguards the rights of those convicted.”34 26 Complaint appeal filed before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, no date, Attachment to the initial petition. 27 Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, F. 115. XXXIV. Appeal of Fact, Fiscal and civilian party c/ Gorigoitia, Oscar Raúl, August 6, 1998, Attachment to the initial petition. 28 Article 8.2 h) of the American Convention establishes the following: Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: (…) h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 29 Article 25.1 of the American Convention establishes the following: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 30 IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Merits, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica, April 4, 2014, para. 188. 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. 242; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 97. 31 32 Inter-American Court. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. See, in general: IACHR, Report No. 24/17, Case 12.254, Merits. Víctor Hugo Saldaño. United States. March 18, 2017, para. 204. 33 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 252. 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. 242; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 89; Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 97; Inter-American Court. Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 85. 34 9