33 instance before said High Court of Justice.164 In this regard, in the Judgment, the InterAmerican Court found that the alleged damages suffered by Mr. Alibux were encompassed within the aforementioned violation of the right to appeal the judgment and that it should be declared as violated. As a result, the Inter-American Court did not deem it necessary to make additional determinations with respect to the violation of the right to judicial protection set forth in Article 25 of the American Convention, as the consequences of the damages described in his allegations were subsumed in the considerations in the Judgment in relation to Article 8(2)(h),165 regarding the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court or judge. 112. As noted above, had the Inter-American Court considered the integrative dimension of rights and its implications in a model of exercising control for conformity with the Convention in the present case, it would have been able to reach different conclusions with respect to Article 25 of the American Convention. 113. First, the differences between the right set forth in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection established in Article 25 thereof (supra, paras. 59 to 68) would have brought about the independent declaration of a violation of the latter. 114. As was stated at the time, the effective judicial remedy under Article 25 of the Convention is broad and general to protect the rights contained in the Constitution, the legislation, or the American Convention; while the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court set forth in Article 8(2)(h) is aimed at the review of a decision reached in the context of a process that can include the determination of rights and obligations of a criminal nature, as well as of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 166 While the latter is encompassed within the scope of due process, the first one is within the dimension of the right to the guarantee of fundamental rights of both constitutional and conventional sources. 115. With respect to the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court or tribunal enshrined in Article 8(2)(h), the Inter-American Court has consistently avoided any confusion between this recourse and the provisions of Article 25 of the American Convention, which provides for the right to an effective judicial recourse. That is, the InterAmerican Court has identified that the remedy set forth in Article 25 of the American Convention is not the same as the process of appeal provided for in Article 8(2)(h) of the same treaty.167 From the foregoing, the differences 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. However, undoubtedly, there exists 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 164 Cf. Para. 117 of the Judgment. 165 Cf. Para. 119 of the Judgment. 166 Cf. Case of de la “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 149. 167 See, among others, Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 178; Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 100 to 103; and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, paras. 118 and 119.