77 152. Under articles 448 and 449 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in processing the writ of cassation the court may call an oral hearing and order the taking of whatever evidence will be useful in determining whether procedural law has been violated; however, no evidence may be introduced to prove whether or not the crime was committed. 153. Article 450 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that should the court of cassation deem it appropriate, it will nullify all or part of the decision being challenged and will reinstate the case or order a new decision. It states further that when only part of the original judgment is annulled, the concrete object of the new trial or decision shall be indicated; otherwise, “the error shall be corrected” and the matter decided in accordance with the applicable law. 154. As has been shown (supra para. 95(w)), a writ of cassation was filed twice during the criminal case against journalist Mauricio Herrera Ulloa. The first was filed by the attorney for Mr. Félix Przedborski (supra para. 95(r)) challenging the verdict of acquittal that the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José delivered on May 29, 1998 (supra para. 95(q)). When it arrived at its decision on this writ on May 7, 1999, the Third Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court nullified the verdict being challenged on the grounds of an error on the part of the court in explaining the absence of mens rea that was the grounds for the acquittal. It ordered that the case be sent back to the competent court for retrial (supra para. 95(s)). 155. On November 12, 1999, the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José convicted Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa on four counts of publishing offenses constituting defamation (supra para. 95(t)). Two writs of cassation were filed to challenge the verdict, one by defense counsel for the defendant and the special attorney for the newspaper “La Nación”, and the other by Mssrs. Herrera Ulloa and Vargas Rohrmoser, respectively (supra para. 95(w)). 156. On January 24, 2001, the Third Chamber of the Costa Rican Supreme Court dismissed the two writs of cassation. As a result of that decision, the November 12, 1999 conviction became final (supra para. 95(x)). The Chamber that took cognizance of these two writs was composed of the very same justices who, on May 7, 1999, had decided the writ of cassation filed by the attorney for Mr. Félix Przedborski (supra paragraphs 95(r) and 95(s)) and who had ordered nullification of the May 29, 1998 verdict of acquittal (supra para. 95(s)). a) Right to appeal to a higher court (Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention) 157. Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention provides that in a case, every person is entitled, with full equality, “to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” 158. The Court considers that the right to appeal a judgment is an essential guarantee that must be respected as part of due process of law, so that a party may turn to a higher court for revision of a judgment that was unfavorable to that party’s interests. The right to file an appeal against a judgment must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata. The aim 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. 159. The Court has held that the right to appeal a judgment, recognized in the Convention, is not satisfied merely because there is a higher court than the one that