8 in establishing the boundary does not mean that a strictly private zone does not exist, one that is legitimately removed from public scrutiny. 26. When analyzing this point, which has been examined and debated time and time again, one cannot ignore the fact that a public official can use the authority or influence he has, precisely by virtue of his position, to serve private interests, his own or those of third parties. Where this kind of accommodation of private interests exists, it ought not to be beyond the realm of collective democratic scrutiny. Otherwise, it would be an easy matter to erect artificial borders between “public and private” matters, as a means of removing private acts or situations that rely on the individual’s position as a public official from that democratic scrutiny. The “umbrella of protection” of someone who has agreed to serve the republic, in the broad sense, is lower than someone who has not (just as it is lower in the case of those who have sought to put themselves in the public eye and thus permitted broad public access). Again I must emphasize: the umbrella is there, of course; however, it is different from the one that protects the citizen who has not taken on the position and the responsibility of someone in public office who, for that very reason, has certain obligations –ethical and legal- vis-à-vis the society he serves or the State that manages society’s interests. 27. To put it another way, the republic heeds –as well it should- the manner in which its public officials represent it, serve its interests, perform the functions inherent in the office conferred, and exercise their authority, the influence or the advantages that that representation or those offices represent. The trust that society invests –directly or through the appointments that certain organs of the State make- is not a “blank check”. It rests upon and is renewed upon a rendering of accounts. That rendering of accounts is not given in some solemn, periodic ceremony; it is given in service, through reports, explanations, vouchers. Obviously, the exercise of that public scrutiny through the information made available to the public is not without its responsibilities: in today’s world, no one is legibus solutus. Democracy does not mean transferring abusive exercise of power from someone’s hands to someone else’s, who would be free to do whatever he wanted. However, I already addressed the issue of accountability and the way to exact it. 5. Recourse to a higher judge or court 28. The Judgment in the Case of Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica raises other issues that I would like to examine in this Opinion. One is the remedy attempted to challenge the court ruling that went against the victim. As to the minimum guarantees to which the accused shall have a right, the American Convention provides that every person accused of a criminal offense shall have “the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court” (Article 8(2)(h)). This is one of the ingredients of due process, which the Court recognizes as applying to trials of all types, not just criminal trials. In my view, this “right to appeal” may also apply to the system of judicial protection provided for in Article 25 of the Convention, if it is understood that the recourse or remedy to which Article 25 refers, which has an essence of its own that distinguishes it from the proceeding to which Article 8 refers, must also conform to the system of due process of law, with everything that implies. 29. The dual instance system is well known, although the second instance is perhaps more common in some places than in others. The purpose of that second instance is to re-examine the material heard in first instance and to confirm, modify or vacate the lower-court decision on the basis of that re-examination of the facts.