subjected to an investigation and criminal proceedings. These minimum guarantees must be protected at the different stages of the criminal proceedings, which include the investigation, indictment, prosecution, and sentencing. The last subparagraph, which enumerates these guarantees, that is (h), refers to the “right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” This is a guarantee for the individual in relation to the State, and not just a recommendation to guide the design of the appeals system in the legal systems of the State Parties to the Convention. 242. The Court has indicated that the right to appeal the judgment is a crucial guarantee that must be respected as part of the due process of law, in order to permit the review of an adverse decision by a different and higher judge or court. 309 The right to review by a higher court, represented by the access to a remedy that grants the possibility of a complete review of the sentence, confirms the merits and gives greater credibility to the jurisdictional act of the State while, at the same time, offering greater security and protection to the rights of the individual who has been convicted. 310 The Court has also indicated that, the important point is that the remedy must guarantee the possibility of a comprehensive examination of the decision appealed. 311 243. The right to contest the judgment seeks to protect the right of defense to the extent that it grants the possibility of filing an appeal to prevent a decision adopting in a flawed proceeding, containing errors that cause undue prejudice to a person’s interests, from becoming final. 312 244. The Court has indicated that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention refers to an accessible and efficient ordinary remedy. 313 This assumes that it must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata. 314 The effectiveness of the remedy means that it must obtain results or answers in relation to the purpose for which it was conceived. 315 Also, the remedy must be accessible; in other words, it should not require complex formalities that would render this right illusory. 316 In this regard, the Court finds that the formalities required for the appeal to be admitted should be minimal and should not constitute an obstacle to the appeal fulfilling its objective of examining and deciding the grievances claimed by the appellant. 317 245. It should be understood that, regardless of the appeals system or regime adopted by the States Parties, and the name given to the means of contesting a conviction, for it to be effective, it must constitute an appropriate means of obtaining the rectification of a wrongful conviction. This means that it must be able to analyze the facts, evidence and law on which the contested judgment was based, because, in jurisdictional activities, interdependence 309 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, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 97. 310 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 89, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 97. 311 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 165, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 97. 312 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 158, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 98. 313 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, paras. 161, 164, 165 and 167, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 99. 314 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 158, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 99. 315 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 161, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 99. 316 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, para. 164, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 99. 317 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 99. 80