16 49. Therefore, the right to review by a higher court, expressed by means of the complete review of the conviction, ratifies the grounds and provides more credibility to the judicial acts of the State and, at the same time, offers more security and protection to the rights of the accused.74 50. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has indicated that the right to appeal the judgment embodied in the Convention is not satisfied merely because there is a higher court than the one that tried and convicted the accused and to which the latter has or may have access. For a true review of the judgment, in the sense required by the American Convention, the higher court must have the jurisdictional authority to take up the specific case in question. It is important to underscore the fact that from first to last instance, a criminal proceeding is a single proceeding in various stages, 75 including the processing of the ordinary challenges filed against the judgment.76 51. In accordance with the object and purpose of the American Convention, which is the effective protection of human rights,77 it must be understood that the remedy contemplated in Article 8(2)(h) of the foregoing treaty must be an ordinary, accessible, and effective remedy whereby a higher court or tribunal seeks to correct jurisdictional decisions that are not in keeping with the law.78 52. The effectiveness of the remedy implies that it must seek to provide results or answers for the purpose for which it was conceived.79 Moreover, the remedy must be accessible; that is, it should not involve great complexities that render this right illusory. 80 In this regard, the Court has considered that the formalities required for the appeal to be admitted should be minimal and should not constitute an obstacle to the remedy fulfilling its purpose of examining and resolving grievances argued by the appellant.81 53. While States have a margin of discretion in regulating the exercise of that remedy, they may not establish restrictions or requirements that violate the very essence of the right to appeal a judgment.82 As such, the Inter-American Court has stated that it should be 74 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 89. 75 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 161. 76 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 159. 77 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 95 78 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paras. 161 and 164; and Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 88. 79 Cf. Case of Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 161; and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 99. 80 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 164. 81 Cf. Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, para. 99. 82 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 161.