35 Convention, such as those performed by tribunals in various countries in the region, as has been observed, for instance, in the cases of Argentina and the Dominican Republic. 118. On the one hand, in the case of Mendoza et. al v. Argentina, the Inter-American Court analyzed the pertinent part of the “Casal judgment,” whereby the highest Argentinean court, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, adjusted the remedy of cassation to Inter-American standards.168 In the aforementioned judgment, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina indicated that “Articles 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and 14(5) of the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights] require the review of every issue of fact and law and, therefore, any error that the judgment may contain shall be subject to appeal.”169 The Inter-American Court appreciated the Casal judgment with regard to the criteria it reveals on the scope of the review comprised by the appeal in cassation, in accordance with the standards derived from Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.170 From the foregoing, the Court deemed it appropriate to consider that the judges in Argentina should continue exercising control for conformity with the Convention in order to ensure the right to appeal the judgment pursuant to Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court itself. Nonetheless, the Court considered that, even with the judges exercising control for conformity with the Convention, it was necessary to, within a reasonable time, adapt domestic laws to the Inter-American parameters on the matter.171 119. Meanwhile, in the Dominican Republic, on February 24, 1999, the Supreme Court of Justice recognized that the protection provided for in Article 25(1) of the American Convention comprised part of the positive domestic law by virtue of the provisions of Articles 3 and 10 of the Constitution, thus establishing the writ of amparo in the country.172 The foregoing was in response to an appeal filed against a judgment from the Court of Labor of the National District. Similarly, the Supreme Court established the general guidelines of competency, procedure, and deadlines of the writ of amparo.173 The writ of amparo is currently found established in the new Constitution of 2010, and the recently installed Constitutional Court hears appeals filed in connection to judgments rendered in this matter.174 120. With the foregoing examples, I do not intend to demonstrate that the High Court of Justice of Suriname should have necessarily followed the same steps of these Latin American tribunals, but rather that, in any case, the American Convention should have been given practical effect, specifically in regard to the arguments of the violation of Article 168 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on September 20, 2005 in the case “Casal, Matías Eugenio et al. s/ attempted robbery.” 169 Case of Mendoza et al. V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 254. 170 Cf. Case of Mendoza et al. V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 331. 171 Cf. Case of Mendoza et al. V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 332. 172 Cf. Supreme court of Justice of Dominican Republic, Case of Productos Avon, S.A. February 24, 1999. 173 As such, Law No. 437-06 was enacted which establishes the Remedy of Amparo (no longer in effect). 174 It is established as such in the Dominican Constitution of 2010 (Article 185) and in the Organic Law of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Constitutional Procedures, num. 137-11 (Article 94).