285. Regarding the argument of the appellants that the exculpatory testimonial evidence was not assessed, the court of appeal stated that the complaints expressed in this regard “correspond to evidence that was not used by the court to substantiate its conclusions” and that, “therefore, it is evidence […] that the court is not required to assess, but only to state the reason why it was rejected.” 286. Expert witness Claudio Fuentes Maureira, proposed by the State, indicated that the fifth considerandum of the judgment of the court of appeal (supra para. 283) involved “an overrestrictive interpretation of the norms of the Criminal Procedural Code.”309 287. The Inter-American Court is not required to analyze whether a judgment of a domestic court interpreted and applied domestic law correctly or incorrectly, but only to determine whether or not this violated a provision of the American Convention. The foregoing reveals with absolute clarity that the Temuco Court of Appeal did not make a comprehensive examination of the decision appealed, because it did not analyze all the contested factual, probative and legal aspects on which the guilty verdict was based. This means that it did not take into account the interdependence that exists between the factual determinations and the application of the law, so that an erroneous determination of the facts entails an erroneous or improper application of the law (supra para. 270.d). 288. In addition, this Court notes that the judgment that denied the appeal made an interpretation of the Criminal Procedural Code (supra para. 284) that permitted evidence that the appellants considered relevant to support their defense not to be assessed, merely indicating the reasons why it was “rejected.” In this regard, it should be emphasized that, when deciding the objections submitted by the appellant, the higher court hearing the appeal to which a person convicted has the right under Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention must ensure that the guilty verdict provides clear, complete and logical grounds in which, in addition to describing the content of the evidence, it sets out its assessment of this and indicates the reasons why it considered – or did not consider – it reliable and appropriate to prove the elements of criminal responsibility and, therefore, to disprove the presumption of innocence. 289. It is also possible to note that, with regard to the argument of the defense regarding the improper assessment of the evidence (alleging that numerous testimonies were not assessed individually, so that the conclusions derived from them did not take into account the particularities of each of these statements and the supposed contradictions between them), the Court of Appeal stated that it “agreed with the Public Prosecution Service that the law makes it obligatory to analyze all the evidence, but not to analyze each piece of evidence individually, thus the criterion of the court was correct in setting out the testimony on those aspects on which the statements corroborated each other.” By proceeding in this way, the higher court did not resolve the appellants’ complaint or disagreement regarding the evidence, which referred not only to the alleged obligation to make an individual assessment of the evidence, but also to specific objections and comments on the content of explicit evidence and the conclusions that the lower court had derived from this evidence. In this regard, this Court underlines that, when a guilty verdict is appealed and in order not to make the right to be heard in equal conditions illusory, the higher court that decides an appeal must ensure that the lower court has complied with its obligation to describe an assessment that takes into account both the inculpatory and the exculpatory evidence. Even if the lower court chooses to assess the evidence together, it has the duty to explain clearly the points on which agreement exists and those on which there is disagreement, as well as to refer to any objections that the defense may have raised on specific points or aspects of this evidence. These aspects raised by the defense in the appeal against the guilty verdict were not sufficiently decided by the higher court in this case. 309 Cf. Statement made by expert witness Carlos Fuentes Maureira before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing held on May 29 and 30, 2013. 100