higher court for revision of a judgment that was unfavorable [...]".172 Bearing in mind that judicial guarantees seek to ensure that anyone involved in a proceeding is not subject to arbitrary decisions, the Court interprets that the right to appeal a judgment cannot be effective unless it is guaranteed in respect of all those who are convicted,173 since the judgment is the manifestation of the exercise of punitive power of the State.174 The Court has considered the right to appeal a judgment as one of the minimum guarantees that every person who is subjected to a criminal investigation and trial has.175 127. Furthermore, the Court has held that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention refers to an ordinary, accessible, and effective remedy, that is, one that should not require complex formalities that would render this right illusory. In this sense, the formalities required for the remedy to be admitted should be minimal and should not constitute an obstacle for it to fulfill its purpose of examining and resolving the grievances sustained by the appellant, that is, it should seek results or responses to the purpose for which it was conceived. It must be understood that, regardless of the remedial regime or system adopted by the States Parties, and regardless of the label given to the means of challenging the conviction, for it to be effective it must constitute an adequate means to seek the correction of an erroneous conviction. The appeal must be appropriate to analyze the factual, evidentiary, and legal issues on which the contested judgment is based, since in jurisdictional activity there is an interdependence between the factual determinations and the application of the law, such that an erroneous determination of the facts implies an erroneous or improper application of the law. Consequently, the grounds on which an appeal is admissible must allow for a broad review of the contested aspects of the conviction.176 128. In view of the foregoing, the Court notes that the Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedure provides for two remedies that are intended to satisfy the right to appeal the judgment: the special appeal and the appeal in cassation. Article 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states the following with respect to the remedy of appeal: "The judgment may in no case rule on the merits of the evidence or the facts that are declared proven in accordance with the rules of sound reasoned criticism. It may only refer to them for the application of the substantive law or when there is a manifest contradiction with the appealed judgment". 129. It is clear from the transcribed legislation that the special appeal is a remedy limited to the analysis of the law, since it does not allow the review of facts or of the evidence accredited by the court a quo. 130. The appeal in cassation is regulated, in what is relevant, as follows: "The court of cassation shall hear only the legal errors contained in the decision appealed against. It is bound by the facts that were considered proven by the sentencing court, and only in cases in which it finds a violation of a constitutional or legal norm may it order the annulment and remand for due correction". Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 158, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 255. Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, paras. 92 and 93 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 255. 174 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 107, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 255. 175 Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 171, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 256. 176 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, paras. 161, 164 and 165, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 172. 172 173 37