19 87. As a consequence, the international decisions that Venezuela refers to in its defense, are not applicable to the State. In fact, such decisions are adverse to the State. 88. The case-law of this Court has emphasized that the aim of the right to appeal a judgment is to protect the right of defense by creating a remedy to prevent a flawed ruling, containing errors unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests, from becoming final.48 89. The right to review by a higher court, expressed by means of the complete review of the conviction, ratifies the grounds and provides more credibility to the judicial acts of the State and, at the same time, offers more security and protection to the rights of the accused. 90. While States have a margin of discretion in regulating the exercise of that remedy, they may not establish restrictions or requirements inimical to the very essence of the right to appeal a judgment.49 The State may establish special judicial privileges for the prosecution of high-ranking government authorities and these privileges are compatible, in principle, with the American Convention (supra para. 74). However, even in these situations, the State may allow the accused the possibility of appealing a condemnatory judgment. This would happen, for example, if it were decided that the proceedings at first instance would be conducted by the president or of a courtroom of a superior tribunal and the appeal would be heard by the full tribunal, to the exclusion of those who already issued an opinion on the case. 91. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal declares that Venezuela violated the right of Mr. Barreto Leiva enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) and 2 therein, inasmuch as the alleged victim was convicted in a court of sole instance and he did not have the possibility, as a result, of appealing the judgment. It is worth mentioning, moreover, that Mr. Barreto Leiva could have appealed the condemnatory judgment issued by the court that heard his case should the principle of connection, which combined the prosecution of several people in the hands of a same court, had not be applied. In this case, the application of the principle of connection, which is admissible per se, entailed the inadmissible consequence of depriving the accused of the remedy referred to in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. 8. right to be tried by an impartial tribunal 92. The representatives stated that “the impartiality of the tribunal that […] tried [Mr. Barreto Leiva] was not satisfactory, among other things, due to the pressure exerted by other officials and authorities over the Supreme Court of Justice and the political reasons of the entire procedure". 93. The State mentioned that “the arguments of the alleged victim in relation to the partiality of the Supreme Court of Justice have no evidentiary basis and only show his disagreement with the condemnatory judgment". 94. Considering that the violation of the right to be tried by an impartial tribunal was not alleged by the Inter-American Commission, the Court reiterates that the alleged victims and their representatives may invoke the violation of other rights 48 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C Nº. 107, para. 158. 49 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica, supra note 48, para. 161.