29 accordance with the above, for purposes of the existence a review by a higher court, the Court has indicated that what matters is that the remedy guarantees a comprehensive examination of the judgment being challenged.96 86. Moreover, the Court has established that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention refers to an ordinary remedy that is accessible and efficient;97 in other words, it should not require complex formalities that would render this right illusory. 98 In this regard, the formalities required for the appeal to be admitted should be minimal and should not constitute an obstacle for the fulfillment of the remedy’s objective of examining and resolving the grievances claimed by the appellant.99 That is, it must obtain results or answers in relation to the purpose for which it was conceived. 100 “It should be understood that, regardless of the appeals system or regime adopted by the State 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 […]. Consequently, the reasons for which the remedy is admissible should allow for extensive control of the contested aspects of the sentence.”101 87. Furthermore, “in the rules that States develop in their respective systems of appeal, they must ensure that this remedy against a conviction respects the minimum procedural guarantees that, under Article 8 of the Convention, are relevant and necessary to decide the grievances claimed by the appellant […].”102 B.2 The establishment of jurisdictions different from ordinary criminal courts for the prosecution of high-ranking officials 88. When dealing with the alleged commission of a crime, the ordinary criminal jurisdiction is activated in order to investigate and punish the alleged perpetrators through the ordinary criminal forums. However, with respect to certain high-ranking officials, some jurisdictions have established a system different from the ordinary courts as the one with jurisdiction to prosecute them, by virtue of the high-ranking office they hold and the importance of their investiture. In this sense, the Court established, in the Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, that “[t]he State may establish special judicial privileges for the prosecution of high-ranking government authorities […].”103 As such, the designation of the highest body of justice for the criminal prosecution of high-ranking officials is not, per se, contrary to Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. 96 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra, para.165, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 242. 97 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra, paras. 161, 164 and 165, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 244. 98 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra, para. 164, and Case of Barreto Leiva, supra, para. 90. 99 Cf. Case of Mohamed, supra, para. 99, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 244. 100 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra, para. 161, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 244. 101 Case of Mohamed, supra, para. 100, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 245. 102 Case of Mohamed, supra, para. 101, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 246. 103 Case of Barreto Leiva, supra, para. 90.