28 that it had not violated Mr. Alibux’s right to appeal the judgment set forth in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. B. Considerations of the Court 83. In order to rule on the alleged violation of the right to appeal the judgment on the part of the State, the Court shall determine the following: a) the scope of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention; b) the establishment of jurisdictions different from ordinary criminal courts for the prosecution of political officers; c) the regulation of the right to appeal criminal convictions of political office holders within comparative jurisdictions; d) the prosecution of Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux in a sole instance and the right to appeal the judgment; and e) the subsequent adoption of the process of appeal. B.1 Scope of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention 84. The Court has, in its constant jurisprudence, referred to the scope and content of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, as well as the standards that must be observed to protect the guarantee of the right to appeal the judgment to a higher judge or court. 89 In this regard, the Court has indicated that such right consists of a crucial and minimum guarantee that “must be respected as part of the due process of law, in order to permit the review of an adverse decision by a different and higher judge or court […].” 90 Bearing in mind that judicial guarantees seek to ensure that anyone involved in a proceeding is not subject to arbitrary decisions, the Court interprets that the right to appeal a judgment cannot be effective unless it is guaranteed to all those who are convicted 91, since the judgment is a manifestation of the exercise of punitive power of the State. 92 85. The Court has considered that the right to appeal the judgment is one of the minimum guarantees that must be afforded to every person who is subjected to a criminal investigation and proceeding.93 In light of the foregoing, the Court has been emphatic in stating that the primary purpose of the right to challenge the judgment is to protect the right of defense, inasmuch as it affords the possibility of a remedy to prevent a flawed ruling, containing errors that are unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests, from becoming final, which assumes that the remedy must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata.94 The right to a review by a higher court allows for the correction of errors or injustices that may have been committed in the decisions in the first instance, confirms the rationale, gives greater credibility to the jurisdictional act of the State, and offers greater security and protection to the rights of the individual who has been convicted. 95 In 89 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 161; Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, paras. 157 to 168; Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 88 to 91; Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 179; Case of Mohamed, supra, paras. 88 to 117, and Case of Mendoza et al. V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparaciones. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, paras. 241 to 261. 90 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra, para. 158, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 242. 91 Cf. Case of Mohamed, supra, paras. 92 and 93. 92 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra, párr. 107, and Case of Mohamed, supra, para.92. 93 Moreover, the Court applied Article 8(2)(h) in relation to the review of an administrative sanction that ordered a penalty of deprivation of liberty, noting that the right to appeal the ruling was a specific type of recourse that should be available to all persons sanctioned to a deprivation of liberty, as a guarantee of their right to defense. Cf. Case of Vélez Loor, supra, paras. 178 and 179. 94 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra, para. 158, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, paras. 243 and 244. 95 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva, supra, para. 89, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 242.