as the duty established in Article 263 thereof, to provisions of domestic law. The representatives argued that, in revoking the acquittal of first instance, a violation of Article 8(4) of the Convention occurred, and they also alleged a violation of Mr. Mohamed’s right to defense in said criminal proceeding. 64. Furthermore, the Commission and the representatives argued that the judicial decisions issued by the First Chamber of the Appeals Court and by the Supreme Court of Justice when ruling on the admissibility of the special federal appeal and of the motion for review (recurso de queja), resulted in violations of the right to defense protected in Article 8(2) 64 (c) of the Convention and of the right to a simple, prompt and effective recourse enshrined in Article 25(1)65 thereof. The representatives held that these decisions by the court also implied violations of Article 8(1) 66 of the Convention, in relation to the right to be heard and the duty to substantiate the decision. 65. The arguments of the Commission and the arguments of the parties regarding these alleged violations are summarized in the next section, which is followed by the considerations of the Court. B) Arguments of the Commission and arguments of the parties B.1) Alleged violation of the right to appeal the judgment (Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention) in relation to the obligation to adopt domestic legal effects (Article 2 of the Convention) 66. The Commission held that the guarantee established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention is not “the right to ‘two instances’, but rather to a review by a higher court, of the conviction […]regardless of the stage at which [this] occurs,” a conclusion that supports “not only [the] text of Article 8(2)(h)) [...] which does not distinguish between procedural stages, but of the preparatory work of the American Convention that reflects the modification of an initial draft that was limited to a review of the judgment in the “first instance”. Likewise, it referred to the “view of the Human Rights Committee which has interpreted Article 14(5) of the Covenant.” It also emphasized that “any person convicted, even at the second instance [on appeal] following an acquittal at first instance, has the right to request a review of various types of issues and to have these effectively analyzed by the higher Court that conducts the review, precisely for the purpose of correcting possible errors of interpretation, assessment or analysis of evidence, as alleged by the defense of [Mr.] Mohamed in each of the instances to which 63 Article 2 of the Convention establishes that “[w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 64 Article 8 (Judicial Guarantees) of the Convention establishes that: 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: […] c) adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense 65 Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[e] veryone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or Court for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 66 Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial Court, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 21