a) Scope and content of the right to appeal the judgment 268. The pertinent provision is contained in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, which stipulates the following: Article 8 Right to a Fair Trial […] 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: […] h) the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 269. The scope and content of the right to appeal the judgment have been specified in numerous cases decided by this Court.290 In general, the Court has determined that it is an essential guarantee that must be respected within the framework of due process of law in order to permit a guilty verdict to be reviewed by a different and higher judge or court.291 Anyone subjected to an investigation and to criminal proceedings must be protected at the different stages of the process, which include the investigation, indictment, trial and sentencing.292 270. In particular, considering that the American Convention must be interpreted taking into account is object and purpose,293 which is the effective protection of human rights, the Court has determined that it must be an ordinary, accessible and effective remedy that permits a comprehensive review or examination of the appealed ruling, that is available to anyone who has been convicted, and that observes basic procedural guarantees: a) Ordinary: the right to file an appeal against the judgment must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata, because it seeks to protect the right of defense by avoiding the adoption of a final decision in flawed proceedings involving errors that unduly prejudice the interests of an individual.294 b) Accessible: the filing of the appeal should not be so complex that it makes this right illusory.295 The formalities for its admission must be minimal and should not constitute an obstacle for the remedy to comply with its purpose of examining and deciding the errors claimed by the appellant.296 c) Effective: it is not sufficient that the remedy exists formally; rather it must permit obtaining results or responses in order to achieve the purpose for which it was conceived.297 Regardless of the appeal regime or system adopted by the States Parties and the name given to the means of contesting the adverse judgment, it must constitute 290 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 161; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, 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. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 179; Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, paras. 88 to 117; Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, paras. 241 to 261, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, paras. 83 to 111. 291 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 158, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 84. 292 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 91, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 47. 293 According to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, “[a] treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.” 294 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 158, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 85. 295 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 164, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 55. 296 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 99, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para.86. 297 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 161, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 52. 93