C. The right of defense and the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court (Articles 8.2 (c), (f), and (h) of the Convention)79 1. Regarding the right of defense 105. The petitioner alleged that in the context of the punitive proceedings, Mr. Rico’s right of defense recognized in Article 8(2) of the Convention was violated in a number of ways: The first is that the preliminary discovery period afforded to the plaintiff was said to have been arbitrarily extended. The second is that he was purportedly prevented from submitting evidence critical for his defense, specifically witness testimony. 106. As to the first point, the Commission notes that the time limit for preliminary discovery was indeed extended in the course of the proceeding. The Commission observes that that possibility is envisaged in law and that the petitioner did not explain how that extension adversely affected his right of defense. From the description of the proceedings, the Commission finds that Mr. Rico had access to all the information that supported the accusation and presented no arguments to the effect that the time that he was afforded for the preparation of his defense was insufficient in light of the extension granted to the other party, or that the other party had had an advantage incompatible with the principle of equality of arms (égalité des armes). 107. As regards the second point, the record suggests two reasons why Mr. Rico was denied the possibility of presenting testimony evidence. For one thing, certain testimony was refused because it did not comply with the formal requirement that it be accompanied by the corresponding questions. For another, two witnesses who sought to refute the "supposed profile of psychosis or insanity” of the alleged victim were refused with the argument that their testimony was not related to the grounds for the accusation and, therefore, were “manifestly overabundant.” The Commission finds that the two reasons provided to support the refusal were not manifestly unreasonable nor incompatible with the applicable standards. In that connection, the Commission notes that the mental health of the alleged victim was not in discussion nor reasonably related to the grounds under analysis. As regards the formal requirement to include the questions to be put to proposed witnesses, the Commission does not consider it unduly onerous or that Mr. Rico was unable to comply. 108. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Argentine State did not violate Eduardo Rico’s right of defense. 2. Regarding the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court 109. The right of appeal is recognized as a part of due process of law by Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention.80 With respect to this guarantee, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provide that “[d]ecisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review.”81 The review of a conviction demands the possibility of a comprehensive examination 79 Article 8(2) of the Convention provides: 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; d. the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; [...] f. the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; [...] h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” 80 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 2, 2004, par. 158. 81Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Principle 20.