121. In accordance with the principles of sound judicial discretion and unity of evidence, the judge may conduct a concatenated and rational study of the entire body of evidence at their disposal in the process, to generate conviction with respect to any fact, as long as this is in accordance with judicial guarantees such as the adversarial principle, the presumption of innocence, the right of defense, among others. Therefore, the requirement imposed on the judge when motivating the determinations that he/she adopts, is to substantiate the causes and reasons that support the appreciation of the evidentiary elements at their disposal. 122. First, with regard to the alleged irregularity of the evidence on the identification of the alleged perpetrators through the use of kardex cards with photographs, this Court notes from the content of the first instance judgment that the court affirmed that this evidence was considered "as the starting point of the investigation that led to the clarification of the criminal offense that was the subject of the trial".169 It also added that "the investigators of the National Police Accountability Office agree with the same version, which leads the judges to believe that what they state is true".170 Consequently, this Court appreciates that there was a pronouncement to accept the aforementioned means of conviction, not as identification evidence, but as part of the investigation carried out by the police force, supported by certain reasoning. The Court observes that the facts declared proven in the judgment were based on the conviction of the judging body through multiple evidence, so that the requirement of sufficient justification was met in this regard. 123. On the other hand, with regard to the ballistics expert evidence presented by expert witness M. X. X., the representatives argued that it lacked the legal formalities established by the applicable legislation. However, this Court notes that the domestic court considered that "the expert witness testified in the debate, thus satisfying the exception contained in Article 364(1)(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure".171 Therefore, the Court considers that the determination adopted by referring to a case of exception and mentioning the article on which it was based, provided the required information to the parties involved in the proceedings of the reasons on which the judges admitted this evidence. 124. Finally, as regards the alleged lack of reasoning in the analysis of mitigating factors relating to the conduct of the accused that could prevent the application of the death penalty, the Court considers that this aspect is linked to the use of the criterion of dangerousness of the agent and the applicable criminal classification, which has already been examined by this Court (supra paras. 61 to 64), and therefore does not rule on the matter. 125. In sum of the foregoing, this Court finds that the State did not violate the duty of sufficient justification, the right of defense, or the principle of presumption of innocence of the alleged victims. b.3 Right to appeal against the judgment to a higher court 126. The Court has referred in its case law to the scope and content of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, as well as to the standards that must be observed to ensure the right to appeal a judgment to a higher court. The Court has understood that this right consists of a minimum and essential guarantee that "must be respected as part of due process, so that a party may turn to a Cf. Judgment issued by the Fourth Criminal Sentencing Tribunal for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of Guatemala, May 23, 1996 (evidence file, folio 102). 170 Cf. Judgment issued by the Fourth Criminal Sentencing Tribunal for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of Guatemala, May 23, 1996 (evidence file, folio 102). 171 Cf. Judgment issued by the Fourth Criminal Sentencing Tribunal for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of Guatemala, May 23, 1996 (evidence file, folio 102). 169 36