18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter, the "ICCPR") which is very similar to Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention 43. In said case, the Committee decided, in a similar sense to the one displayed by Venezuela, the following: The Committee considers that the expression “according to law”, found at párrafo 5 del artículo 14 del Pacto is not intended to leave the very existence of the right of review to the discretion of the States parties, since the rights are those recognized by the Covenant, and not merely those recognized by domestic law. Rather, what is to be determined "according to law" is the modalities by which the review by a higher tribunal is to be carried out.44 The Committee ruled against the State on the grounds that the State denied Mrs. Consuelo Salgar de Montejo the right to review by a higher tribunal. 85. The other decision referred to by the State (supra para. 83) it is also one issued by the Committee. It is the case of Duillo Fanali against Italy.45 Venezuela accurately mentioned that in this case, the Committee did not rule against Italy for the fact that the petitioner was tried in sole instance together with people who enjoy a special privilege. However, the lack of conviction was due to the fact that the State had made a reservation regarding Article 14(5) of the ICCPR, and not because the Committee had considered that there was no violation. In addition, in other cases, the Committee has pointed out that: The State party contends that in situations such as the author's, if an individual is tried by the highest ordinary criminal court, the guarantee set out in Article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant does not apply; the absence of a right to review by a higher tribunal is offset by the fact of being tried by the highest court, and this situation is common in many States parties to the Covenant. Article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant stipulates that everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. The Committee points out that "according to law" is not intended to mean that the very existence of a right to review is left to the discretion of the States parties. Although the State party's legislation provides in certain circumstances for the trial of an individual, because of his position, by a higher court than would normally be the case, this circumstance alone cannot impair the defendant's right to review of his conviction and sentence by a court. The Committee accordingly concludes that there has been a violation of Article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant with regard to the facts submitted in the communication.46 86. The only exception to this rule, which the Committee has accepted, was put forward in the following terms: Where the highest court of a country acts as first and only instance, the absence of any right to review by a higher tribunal is not offset by the fact of being tried by the supreme tribunal of the State party concerned; rather, such a system is incompatible with the Covenant, unless the State party concerned has made a reservation to this effect47 (emphasis added). 43 Article 14(5) of the ICCPR provides that: Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. 44 Cf. Human Rights Committee, Communication N° 64/1979, Consuelo Salgar de Montejo V. Colombia, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/C at 127 (1985) March 24, 1982; para. 10.4. 45 Cf. Human Rights Committee, Communication N° 75/1980, Duilio Fanali V. Italy U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 99 (1990) March 31, 1983. 46 Cf. Human Rights Committee, Communication N° 1073/2002, Jesús Terrón c. Spain, U.N.Doc. CCPR/C/82/D/1073/2002 (2004), November 15, 2004, para. 7.4. 47 Cf. Human Rights Committee, General Comment N° 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para. 47.