41 182. Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention provides 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: h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 183. The Commission will examine whether the Argentine State violated the guarantee contemplated in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in the following order: i) General questions on the right to appeal a judgment; ii) an examination of the cases of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández; and iii) considerations regarding the subsequent developments vis-à-vis the right to appeal a judgment. 1. General questions on the right to appeal a judgment 184. The right to appeal a judgment before another or higher court is a fundamental guarantee of due process whose purpose is to avoid a miscarriage of justice from becoming res judicata. Under the case law of the inter-American system, the purpose of this right is “to prevent a flawed ruling, containing 138 errors unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests, from becoming final.” Due process of law would lack efficacy without the right of defense at trial and the opportunity to defend oneself against a sentence by 139 means of a proper review. 185. International human rights law does not concern itself with the label given to the existing 140 remedy to appeal a judgment. What matters is that the remedy meets certain standards. First, it must 141 occur before the sentence becomes res judicata and must be decided within a reasonable period, i.e., it must be timely. It must also be an effective remedy; in other words, it must provide results or responses to 142 the end that it was intended to serve, which is to prevent the consummation of an injustice. It must also 143 be accessible, and not require the kind of formalities that would render this right illusory. 186. The Commission must underscore the point that the efficacy of a remedy is closely linked to the scope of the review. This is so because judicial authorities are fallible and can make mistakes that result in injustice. Judicial error is not confined to the application of the law, but may happen in other aspects of the process such as the determination of the facts or the weighing of evidence. Hence, the remedy of appeal will be effective in accomplishing the purpose for which it was conceived if it makes possible a review of such issues without determining a priori that review will only be allowed with respect to certain aspects of the court proceedings. 187. In Abella v. Argentina, the Inter-American Commission wrote the following: Article 8(2)(h) refers to the minimum characteristics of a remedy that serves as a check to ensure a proper ruling in both substantive and formal terms. From the formal standpoint the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court to which the American Convention refers should, in the first place, apply to every first instance judgment with the purpose of examining the unlawful application, the lack of application, or the erroneous interpretation of rules of law based on the operative part of the judgment. The Commission also considers that to guarantee the full right of defense, this remedy 138 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. 139 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 252. 140 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 165; UN Human Rights Committee. Communication No. 701/1996, Gómez Vázquez v. Spain, Decision of August 11, 2000, para. 11.1. 141 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. See also, Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Communication No. 1100/202, Bandajevsky v. Belarus, Decision of April 18, 2006, para. 11.13. 142 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 161. 143 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 164.