21 sufficient elements of conviction to exclude any legitimate misgivings or wellgrounded suspicion of partiality regarding his or her person51. 99. The representative did not manage to disprove the presumption of subjective impartiality of the court, nor did it offer sufficient elements of conviction that allow questioning its objective impartiality. Consequently, the Tribunal does not find reasons to depart from the decision made by the Commission during the procedure before it and declares that the State did not violate the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal, embodied in Article 8(1) of the Convention. 9. judicial protection (Article 25(1)) 100. The Commission stated that “as a result of the extension of the special privilege”, Mr. Barreto Leiva “did not enjoy any judicial protection whatsoever and was left with no defense in a situation that could not be appealed”. In that regard, the Commission requested the Court "to declare that the State violated, to his detriment, the right enshrined in Article 25(1) of the American Convention". The representative agreed with the Commission and the State did not present any arguments in this respect. 101. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in broad terms, the obligation of every State Party to provide, to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, an effective legal recourse against legal acts that violate the fundamental rights.52 102. In this respect, the Court considers that the facts of this case are limited to the field of application of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention that, as has been previously mentioned (supra para. 87), embodies a specific type of remedy that must be offered to every person accused of a crime, as a guarantee of his or her right to defense and it deems that it is not provided for in the case of the application of Article 25(1) of said treaty. The defenseless situation of Mr. Barreto Leiva was due to the impossibility of appealing the condemnatory judgment, situation covered by Article 8(2)(h) in question. 103. Therefore, the Court declares that the State did not violate the right embodied in Article 25(1) of the Convention. 10. Specifications related to Article 2 of the Convention 104. As observed in paragraphs 56 and 90 supra, this Court declared the noncompliance with Article 2 of the Convention, considering that the Venezuelan legal system prevented Mr. Barreto Leiva from gaining access to the records of the proceeding before being arrested, in violation of Article 8(2).c) of the Convention, as well as it failed to provide him with a remedy that would allow the accused to appeal the judgment against him, in violation of Article 8(2)(h) of said treaty. 105. Venezuela pointed out that “it adhered to the compliance with domestic laws that, at the time of the events, were considered, in Venezuela and in the rest of Latin America, the criminal due process. The application of the American Convention implied a change in the doctrine which meant for the States Parties to the 51 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes") V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 56. 52 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela, supra note 21, para. 59.