20 Convention were accepted, as was the case with respect to Article 7(6) of said international instrument in regard to the writ of habeas corpus.103 However, the recent jurisprudential trend is clear in that it tends to separate and confine them to their specific domains of application. It should be noted that this task is still incomplete in various respects and, in many cases, it is very difficult to realize these differentiations with absolute precision due to the natural interaction or overlap of the substantive or qualifying rights, and to the different configurations of judicial remedies in each State against which the Inter-American Court is competent to hear cases. 65. With respect to the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court embodied in Article 8(2)(h), the Inter-American Court has consistently avoided, in any way, to confuse this recourse with the provisions of Article 25, which provides for the right to an effective legal remedy. In other words, the Inter-American Court has identified that the remedy enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention is not the process of appeal (usually named that in domestic law) set forth in Article 8(2)(h) thereof. 66. For example, in the cases of Barreto Leiva104 and Mohamed,105 the Inter-American Court avoided declaring the violation of the right to judicial protection (Article 25) in relation to the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. In these cases, the arguments of the parties with respect to a possible violation of Article 25 of the American Convention were closely linked to the inexistence of a remedy by which to enforce the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.106 67. Moreover, in the case of Velez Loor and in the recent case of Mendoza et al., although the standard in the above mentioned cases consisting of the non-declaration of a violation of Article 25 of the Pact of San José for the inexistence of a remedy by which to appeal the judgment to a higher court was ratified,107 the Inter-American Court did find other sorts of circumstances that had affected the right of Article 25 of the Convention in 103 Cf. Habeaus Corpus in Emergency Situations (arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series to No. 8, para.32 and et seq.. 104 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 100 to 103. 105 Cf. Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, paras. 118 and 119. 106 In the Case of Mohamed, the Inter-American Court mentioned that “The Court also emphasizes that, notwithstanding the fact that each of the rights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning and scope100, the failure to guarantee the right to appeal the judgment prevents the exercise of the right to defense which is protected through this mechanism and implies the lack of protection of other basic guarantees of due process that must be assured to the appellant, as applicable, so that a higher judge or court may rule on the grievances argued. Accordingly, the Court does not consider it necessary to issue an additional ruling on the alleged violation of the rights to defense, the right to be heard, the duty to substantiate the decision and the right to a simple and prompt remedy.” Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, para. 119. 107 In the Case of Vélez Loor, the Inter-American Court considered that the facts of this case are confined to the sphere of application of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, which embodies a specific type of remedy that must be offered to every individual in custody, as guarantee of the individual’s right to defense, and it rules that here there are no grounds for the application of Article 25(1) of the treaty. Mr. Vélez Loor’s helplessness was due to the impossibility of appealing the punitive ruling, a situation covered by Article 8(2)(h) in question. Cf. Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 178.