21 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 74. The right to appeal the judgment to 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 make it possible for an adverse judgment to be reviewed by another and higher court47 and prevent a flawed ruling, containing errors unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests, from becoming final.48 Due process of law would lack efficacy without the right of defense in a trial and the opportunity to defend oneself against an adverse decision by means of adequate review of judgment.49 The Inter-American Court has held that the right to review by a higher court, expressed by means of the complete review of conviction, ratifies the grounds thereof 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.50 75. 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 courts proceedings.51 76. These standards regulating the right to appeal the judgment, were recently upheld by the Inter-American Court in the case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Particularly, with regard to the scope of the review, the Court held that regardless of the rules or system of appeal adopted by States Party and of the name given by them to the means of contesting a conviction, in order for this remedy to be effective, it must constitute an adequate means to pursue the rectification of an erroneous conviction.52 The Court also explicitly established, along the same lines as the Commission, that the remedy must respect any of the minimum procedural guarantees which, under Article 8 of the 47 IA Ct of HR, Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Preliminary Objects, Merits and Reparations. Judgment May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 242; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 97. 48 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. 49 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 252. 50 IA Ct of HR, Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 242; Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 89; and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 97. 51 IACHR, Report No. 172/10, Case 12.561, Merits, César Alberto Mendoza et al (Juveniles Sentenced to Life Time Imprisonment), Argentina, November 2, 2010, para. 186. 52 IA Ct of HR, Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 245.