a) A distinction is made between the “reasons for the appeal” for annulment in general (Article 373) and the “absolute grounds for annulment” (Article 374). In the latter, the trial and the judgment will always be annulled. In the other situations, even though, in general, it is established that “[t]he declaration of the nullity of the oral trial and of the judgment shall be admissible,” article 385 authorizes the court to “invalidate the judgment alone.” b) If both the oral trial and the judgment are invalidated, article 386 is applicable and the case will be forwarded to the corresponding competent oral court for a new oral trial to be held. c) If the judgment alone is invalidated and the requirements of article 385 are met, the higher court must deliver another judgment to replace it. d) The ruling declaring the annulment must (article 384.2) “describe the grounds on which its decision is based; rule on the contested issues, unless it upholds the appeal, in which case it may merely rule on the grounds that it would have found sufficient, and declare whether or not the oral trial and final judgment that have been appealed are null, or whether only the said judgment is null, in the cases indicated” in Article 385. e) The replacement judgment “shall repeat the factual considerations, the legal grounds and the decisions of the ruling that was annulled, that do not refer to the issues that were the object of the appeal or that were incompatible with the decision taken on the appeal, as established in the judgment appealed ” (article 385.2). c) Analysis of the judgments denying the appeals for annulment in light of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention 274. The Court must now analyze whether the appeal system under the Criminal Procedural Code, as it was applied in this case, is consistent with the requirements of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. To this end, The Court is not required to rule on each of the aspects contested in the appeals for annulment, but rather to evaluate whether the examination made by the higher courts that decided the appeals was compatible with the requirement of an effective remedy established in the American Convention. Nor does the Court have to rule on other aspects in which an abstract examination of the norms on remedies in criminal proceedings in force in Chile might reveal some contradiction with the minimum procedural guarantees established in the American Convention. c.i) Criminal proceedings against Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao (judgment delivered by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on December 15, 2003, denying the appeals for annulment) 275. Messrs. Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao filed separate appeals for annulment against the partially guilty verdict of the Angol Oral Criminal Trial Court of September 27, 2003, requesting the annulment of the trial with regard to the offenses for which they had been convicted and the holding of a new trial. In addition, they asked that the judgment be annulled and that a replacement judgment be delivered acquitting those who had been convicted; that it be declared that the offenses were not of a terrorist nature, and that the punishment be amended (supra para. 118). 276. On December 15, 2003, the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice delivered a judgment in which it rejected all the flaws described by the appellants and upheld the partially guilty verdict with regard to Messrs. Pichún Paillalao and Norín Catrimán (supra para. 118). 277. In the judgment rejecting the appeals, the Second Chamber summarized the flaws described by the appellants Norín Catrimán and Pichún Paillalao, and indicated that, “basically, 97