49 The right of everyone convicted of a crime to have his conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal, under Article 14, paragraph 5, imposes on the State party a duty substantially to review, both on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence and of the law, the conviction and sentence, such that the procedure allows for due consideration of the nature of the case. A review that is limited to the formal or legal aspects of the conviction without any consideration 324 whatsoever of the facts is not sufficient under the Covenant. 192. Along this same line of thinking by the ICCPR Human Rights Committee, the IACHR notes that the right to appeal does not necessarily entail a full retrial or a new “hearing,” as long as the court conducting the review can look at the factual dimensions of the case.325 What the norm requires is the opportunity to point out and get an answer to possible errors of various kinds that the judge or the court may have made, without precluding a priori categories such as the facts and weighting and taking of evidence. The manner and means through which the review is conducted will depend on the nature of the questions raised and the characteristics of the criminal procedural system in the State in question.326 193. It is fitting to mention that the American Convention “does not endorse any specific criminal procedural system. It gives the States the liberty to determine which one they prefer, as long as they respect the guarantees established in the Convention itself, the internal legislation, other applicable international treaties, the unwritten norms, and the imperative stipulations of international law.”327 194. However, it is the duty of the States to provide for the means that are necessary to bring the particular characteristics of their system of criminal procedure in line with international human rights obligations and, especially, the minimum due process guarantees set forth in Article 8 of the American Convention. Hence, for example, with regard to criminal procedure systems in which oral proceedings (oralidad) and the immediacy of disposition (inmediación) are the norm, the States are obligated to ensure that said principles do not entail exclusions or restrictions on the scope of the review conducted by the judicial authorities empowered to do so. Likewise, review of the judgment by a higher court must not undermine respect for the principles of the oral nature of proceedings and expedient disposition of matters. 195. These standards regulating the right to appeal the judgment were recently upheld by the Inter-American Court in the case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Particularly, with regard to the 323 The language of Article 14.5 of the ICCPR is substantially similar to that of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention; therefore, any interpretations made by the UN Human Rights Committee on the content and scope of said article are pertinent as a guideline for interpretation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention. 324 UN, Human Rights Committee. Aliboev v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 985/2001, Decision of October 18, 2005; Khalilov v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 973/2001, Decision of March 30, 2005; Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia, Communication No. 623-627/1995, Decision of April 6, 1998; and Saidova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 964/2001, Decision July 8, 2004. 325 UN, Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 “Article 14. Right to equality before the courts and tribunals and to a fair trial.” 2007, para. 48. 326 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. 189. 327 IA Ct of HR, Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 66.