16 criminal proceeding is a single proceeding in various stages,75 including the processing of the ordinary challenges filed against the judgment.76 51. In accordance with the object and purpose of the American Convention, which is the effective protection of human rights,77 it must be understood that the remedy contemplated in Article 8(2)(h) of the foregoing treaty must be an ordinary, accessible, and effective remedy whereby a higher court or tribunal seeks to correct jurisdictional decisions that are not in keeping with the law.78 52. The effectiveness of the remedy implies that it must seek to provide results or answers for the purpose for which it was conceived.79 Moreover, the remedy must be accessible; that is, it should not involve great complexities that render this right illusory. 80 In this regard, the Court has considered that the formalities required for the appeal to be admitted should be minimal and should not constitute an obstacle to the remedy fulfilling its purpose of examining and resolving grievances argued by the appellant. 81 53. While States have a margin of discretion in regulating the exercise of that remedy, they may not establish restrictions or requirements that violate the very essence of the right to appeal a judgment.82 As such, the Inter-American Court has stated that it should be understood that, regardless of the regimen or system of appeals adopted by States Parties and of the name given to a means for challenging the conviction, in order for it to be effective, it must constitute an appropriate means for attempting to correct a wrongful conviction. This requires it to analyze questions of fact, evidence, and law upon which the contested judgment is based, since in judicial activity there is interdependence between the factual determinations and the application of law in such a way that an erroneous finding implies a wrong or improper application of law. Consequently, the reasons for which the remedy is admissible should allow for extensive control of the contested aspects of the sentence.83 54. Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has considered that “the regulations that States develop in their respective systems of review, must ensure that an appeal against a conviction respects the minimum procedural guarantees that are relevant and necessary 75 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 161. 76 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 159. 77 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 95 78 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paras. 161 and 164; and Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 88. 79 Cf. Case of Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 161; and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 99. 80 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 164. 81 Cf. Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, para. 99. 82 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 161. 83 Cf. Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, para. 100.