53 established in Law N° 16 of 1960, given that "there is no record showing the resolution, by which Mr. Jesús Vélez Loor was sentenced to imprisonment, had been formally notified;” apart from the fact that “such resolution was not well-grounded, which prevented challenging its validity.” 175. The State acknowledged “the non-compliance with the obligation to notify Mr. Vélez Loor [of the] content of Order 7306 of December 6, 2002,” insofar as there is “no record of the steps taken to serve notice as required by Article 22 of the National Constitution.” However, it noted that the resolution “was subjected to a series of measures of judicial and non-judicial control that could be taken by the alleged victim at any moment as from [its] issuance [...], disregarding the lack of notice,” which “were not carried out" and that, due to “its administrative nature, it was not adequate to unofficially bring the detainee before a judicial authority.” Moreover, it pointed out that “[e]ven though Mr. Vélez, having noticed the lack of notification of this act, could not appeal, by means of governing channels, the penalty imposed by the National Office of Immigration, he had the opportunity to request its annulment.” Furthermore, it explained that the lack of notification of the administrative act “gives rise to judicial remedies contemplated within the domestic remedies, amparo, habeas corpus and remedies for the protection of Human Rights.” In this respect, the State emphasized that Mr. Vélez Loor had the possibility of resorting to different kinds of actions and remedies, of a governmental or administrative nature, judicial or non-judicial, established in the Panamanian legal system that existed before his arrest and sanction. 176. Moreover, the State alleged that “after the issuance of Order 7306, [Mr. Vélez Loor] had proven access to the Ombudsman’s Office and to the consular officials of his country,” considering that “during his imprisonment at La Joya Penitentiary Center [sic] he had access, by means of such institution, to the judicial mechanisms for the control of administrative proceedings that the domestic legislation in force offered him for the protection of his rights.” 177. According to the arguments of the Commission and the representatives, there is still controversy over whether the State respected and guaranteed the right to appeal the sanction imposed by means of Order 7306 to a higher court, according to Articles 8(2)(h) and 25 of the American Convention. 178. In this respect, the Court considers that the facts of this case are restricted to the field of application of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention that enshrines a specific type of remedy that must be offered to every individual against whom a custodial measure is taken, as guarantee of the individual’s right to defense, and it deems that it is not a ground for application of Article 25(1) of said treaty. The defenselessness of Mr. Vélez Loor was due to the impossibility of appealing the punitive ruling, a situation covered by Article 8(2)(h) in question. 179. The jurisprudence of this Court has emphasized that the aim of the right to appeal a judgment is to protect the right of defense by creating a remedy to prevent a flawed ruling, containing errors unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests, from becoming final.187 The right to review by a higher court, expressed by means of the complete review of the condemnatory or punitive ruling, 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.188 In this respect, the right to appeal a judgment, recognized 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 187 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C Nº 107, para. 158; Case of Barreto Leiva, supra note 96, para. 88. 188 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva, supra note 96, para. 89.