47 A. Right to appeal the judgment to a higher court (Article 8.2.h of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof) 185. Article 8.2.h of the American Convention provides that: 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: h. 1. The right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. General considerations on the right to appeal the judgment 186. The right to appeal the judgment to another and higher court is a fundamental guarantee of due process, whose purpose is to avoid a miscarriage of justice from becoming res judicata. Under the case law of the inter-American system, the purpose of this right is to make it 313 possible for an adverse judgment to be reviewed by another and higher court and prevent a flawed 314 ruling, containing errors unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests, from becoming final. Due process of law would lack efficacy without the right of defense in a trial and the opportunity to defend oneself against an adverse decision by means of adequate review of judgment.315 187. The Inter-American Court has held that the right to review by a higher court, expressed by means “of the complete review of conviction, 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 316 the accused”. 188. In this regard, under international human rights law, what matters most is that the remedy for review of judgment fulfills the particular standards required of it, regardless of the label or 317 name given to the existing remedy. First and foremost, the right to file an appeal against a judgment 313 IA Ct of HR, Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Preliminary Objects, Merits and Reparations. Judgment May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 242; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 97. 314 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. 315 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 252. 316 IA Ct of HR, Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 242; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 89; and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 97. I/A Court H. R., Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, párr. 85. 317 IA Ct of HR, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 165; UN, Human Rights Committee. Gómez Vázquez v. Spain. Communication No. 701/1996. Decision of August 11, 2000, para. 11.1.