31 92. Furthermore, the Court considers it pertinent to refer to the State’s arguments in the sense that the prosecution of high-ranking public officials in the first and only instance is not, by definition, a violation of the generally accepted principle of the right to appeal the judgment, with basis on the regulation permitted by law of such right, as set forth in Article 14, paragraph 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (supra para. 81). 93. In this regard, the Court considers it necessary to emphasize that Article 14, paragraph 5 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights differs from Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention in that the latter is very clear in referring to the right to appeal the judgment without mention of the phrase “according to law,” as is set forth in the article of the ICCPR. Nevertheless, the United Nations Human Rights Committee has interpreted it in paragraph 45 of its General Comment No. 32, in the sense that: “The expression ‘according to law’ in this provision is not intended to leave the very existence of the right of review to the discretion of the States parties, since this right is recognized by the Covenant, and not merely by domestic law. The term according to law rather relates to the determination of the modalities by which the review by a higher tribunal is to be carried out, as well as which court is responsible for carrying out a review in accordance with the Covenant. Article 14, paragraph 5 does not require States parties to provide for several instances of appeal. However, the reference to domestic law in this provision is to be interpreted to mean that if domestic law provides for further instances of appeal, the convicted person must have effective access to each of them.”108 94. As a result, although States have a margin of discretion in regulating the exercise of that remedy through their domestic legislation, they may not establish restrictions or requirements that violate the very essence of the right to appeal a judgment109, or the existence thereof. In this regard, the Court does not consider that reference to domestic law constitutes a mechanism by which the existence of the right of political office holders to appeal the judgment may be affected, especially when such reference is not recognized in the American Convention. B.3.2 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) 95. The Court deems it appropriate to refer to the arguments of the State regarding the prosecution of officials that hold high-ranking public offices in a first, and only, instance is not, by definition, a violation of the generally accepted principle of the right to appeal the judgment, based on Article 2, paragraph 2 of Protocol 7110 of the ECHR (supra para. 81). Notwithstanding the fact that the ECHR does not apply to the States in the region, the Court observes that it is highly influential and serves as a reference to European law in Suriname given its history. 96. In this regard, Article 2, paragraph 2 of Protocol 7 expressly provides an exception to the right to appeal the judgment in cases in which the person concerned is tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal. However, as established in the Case of Mohamed v. 108 UN, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, supra, para. 45. 109 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra, para. 161, and Case Barreto Leiva, supra, para. 90. 110 Article 2 of Protocol 7 of the European Covenant for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms establishes that: “1. Everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal shall have the right to have his conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. The exercise of this right, including the grounds on which it may be exercised, shall be governed by law. 2. This right may be subject to exceptions in regard to offences of a minor character, as prescribed by law, or in cases in which the person concerned was tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal or was convicted following an appeal against acquittal.”