48 318 must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata and it must be resolved within a reasonable period of time, meaning, it must be timely. Furthermore, it must be an effective remedy, in other words, it must provide results or responses to the end that it was intended to serve,319 to wit, to avoid a miscarriage of justice from becoming final. Moreover, the remedy must be accessible; hence, the kind of complex formalities that would render this right illusory must not be required.320 189. It is fitting for the Commission to underscore the point that the efficacy of a remedy is closely linked to the scope of the review. This is so because judicial authorities are fallible and can make mistakes that result in injustice. Judicial error is not confined to the application of the law, but may happen in other aspects of the process such as the determination of the facts or the weighing of evidence. Hence, the remedy of appeal will be effective in accomplishing the purpose for which it was conceived if it makes possible a review of such issues without determining a priori that review will only be allowed with respect to certain aspects of the court proceedings.321 190. On this score, in the Abella v. Argentina case, the Commission noted: Article 8(2)(h) refers to the minimum characteristics of a remedy that serves as a check to ensure a proper ruling in both substantive and formal terms. From the formal standpoint the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court to which the American Convention refers should apply, in the first place […] with the purpose of examining the unlawful application, the lack of application, or the erroneous interpretation of rules of law based on the operative part of the judgment. The Commission also considers that to guarantee the full right of defense, this remedy should include a material review of the interpretation of procedural rules that may have influenced the decision in the case when there has been an incurable nullity or where the right to defense was rendered ineffective, and also with respect to the interpretation of the rules on the weighing of evidence, whenever they have led to an erroneous application or non-application of those rules. […] The remedy should also allow the higher court a relatively simple means to examine the validity of the judgment appealed in general, as well as to monitor the respect for fundamental rights of the 322 accused, especially the right of defense and the right to due process. 191. Likewise, the Human Rights Committee of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) has consistently held that:323 318 UN, Human Rights Committee. Bandajevsky v. Belarus. Communication No. 1100/202, Decision of April 18, 2006, para. 11.13. 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. 158; and Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 244. 319 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. 161; and Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 244. 320 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. 164; and Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 244. 321 IACHR, Report No. 172/10, Case 12.561, Merits, César Alberto Mendoza et al (Juveniles Sentenced to Life Time Imprisonment), Argentina, November 2, 2010, para. 186. 322 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, November 18, 1997, paras. 261-262.