32 Argentina, “the Court does not agree with the scope [that is given to that] provision of the European System to interpret the corresponding provision of the American Convention, precisely because the latter did not provide exceptions as did the European System.”111 In this sense, the Court does not find that the exception continued in the European System can be applied to this case. B.3.3 Practice of the States in the region in relation to the right to appeal the judgment of high-ranking officials 97. The Court finds that the practice of various State Parties of the Organization of American States (OAS) grant their highest authorities the possibility of challenging a condemnatory judgment in criminal proceedings brought against them. To a lesser extent, some States prosecute them in a single instance. This right is recognized by the States, either narrowly, that is, in favor of certain lower rank officials, excluding the President and Vice-President, or broadly, establishing this guarantee to a group of officials of diverse ranks. It should be noted that several States in the region guarantee the right to appeal the judgment notwithstanding the establishment of a court, separate from the ordinary criminal tribunals, as the one with jurisdiction to try their high political and/or public office holders, which, in many cases, is charged to the highest body of justice. 112 98. Likewise, the Court notes that in such cases where there is no authority superior to the highest body that can perform a comprehensive review of the conviction, certain States in the region have adopted different judicial systems to ensure the right to appeal the ruling. In this regard, the Court notes that the foregoing has been achieved through various practices, such as: a) where a Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is the trier in the first instance, the whole body thereof then acts as the instance of appeal and reviews the action; b) where a certain chamber of the Supreme Court is the trier in the first instance, another chamber, of a different composition, resolves the appeal; and c) where a chamber made up of a certain number of judges is the trier in the first instance, another chamber comprised of a larger number of judges, none of whom participated in the proceedings in the first instance, decides the appeal. Moreover, the Court observes that the reviewing bodies are composed of members that did not hear the case in the first instance, and that the decision issued by the reviewing body may modify or revoke the judgment appealed. 99. Based on the aforementioned, the Court holds that the majority of the State Parties of the OAS allow high-ranking officials the possibility to appeal the judgment in the context of criminal proceedings. That is, the need for dual courts, expressed by the appealing of the judgment of conviction, has been recognized by their judicial systems. However, at this time, we will specifically evaluate the criminal proceedings in a sole instance brought against Mr. Alibux before the High Court of Justice of Suriname in light of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, without seeking to advance considerations regarding the compatibility of other legal systems, other than the one to be examined, with the Convention, which shall be analyzed in each specific case, taking into account their nature, particularities, and complexities. 111 112 Case of Mohamed, supra, para. 94. It should be noted that many other States do not prosecute their high-ranking authorities by way of a specialized criminal forum, but rather through an ordinary forum established for the average citizen, after the competent authority removes the prerogative of immunity and authorizes the initiation of an investigation and criminal proceeding.