20 66. For example, in the cases of Barreto Leiva104 and Mohamed,105 the Inter-American Court avoided declaring the violation of the right to judicial protection (Article 25) in relation to the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. In these cases, the arguments of the parties with respect to a possible violation of Article 25 of the American Convention were closely linked to the inexistence of a remedy by which to enforce the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.106 67. Moreover, in the case of Velez Loor and in the recent case of Mendoza et al., although the standard in the above mentioned cases consisting of the non-declaration of a violation of Article 25 of the Pact of San José for the inexistence of a remedy by which to appeal the judgment to a higher court was ratified,107 the Inter-American Court did find other sorts of circumstances that had affected the right of Article 25 of the Convention in relation to the absence of an effective judicial remedy to enforce the right to consular assistance,108 and regarding the lack of due diligence in the investigations,109 respectively. 68. While the jurisprudence is consistent up to this point, and the difference between the remedies that are provided for both in Article 8(2)(h), as well as Article 25 of the American Convention, seem, at least, prima facie evident, there exists, undoubtedly, a gray area where these distinctions may not be as easy to realize, especially when you take into account the broad range of expectations that the recourse framed in Article 25 of the Convention can have, in comparison with the diverse claims that can be substantiated in domestic jurisdictions. III. THE INTEGRATIVE DIMENSION OF THE RIGHTS IN LIGHT OF ARTICLE 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION A. The right to judicial protection as an integrative instrument of fundamental rights from both domestic sources and the Convention 104 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 100 to 103. 105 Cf. Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, paras. 118 and 119. 106 In the Case of Mohamed, the Inter-American Court mentioned that “The Court also emphasizes that, notwithstanding the fact that each of the rights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning and scope100, the failure to guarantee the right to appeal the judgment prevents the exercise of the right to defense which is protected through this mechanism and implies the lack of protection of other basic guarantees of due process that must be assured to the appellant, as applicable, so that a higher judge or court may rule on the grievances argued. Accordingly, the Court does not consider it necessary to issue an additional ruling on the alleged violation of the rights to defense, the right to be heard, the duty to substantiate the decision and the right to a simple and prompt remedy.” Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, para. 119. 107 In the Case of Vélez Loor, the Inter-American Court considered that the facts of this case are confined to the sphere of application of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, which embodies a specific type of remedy that must be offered to every individual in custody, as guarantee of the individual’s right to defense, and it rules that here there are no grounds for the application of Article 25(1) of the treaty. Mr. Vélez Loor’s helplessness was due to the impossibility of appealing the punitive ruling, a situation covered by Article 8(2)(h) in question. Cf. Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 178. 108 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 254. 109 Cf. Case of Mendoza et al. V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 227.