34 105. Nevertheless, Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention establishes the “right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” Mr. Liakat Alibux was tried by the highest court of justice in Suriname and, thus, there was no higher tribunal or judge to perform a comprehensive review of the condemnatory judgment. In this regard, in cases such as this, the Court interprets that in the absence of a higher court, the superiority of the court that reviews the conviction is considered fulfilled when the plenary or a chamber within the same superior body, but of a different composition than the one that originally heard the cause, decides the appeal filed with powers to revoke or amend the judgment of conviction, if it so deems it appropriate. In this sense, the Court has indicated that it can be established, “[...], for example, that the proceedings at first instance would be conducted by the president or a chamber of a superior tribunal, and the appeal would be heard by the whole tribunal, with the exception of those who already issued an opinion on the case.”115 The Court also affirms that this has been the practice of some States in the region (supra para. 98). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court considers that the State can organize itself in a manner that it deems appropriate in order to guarantee the corresponding right to appeal the judgment of high-ranking public officials. 106. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that, in the instant matter, Mr. Alibux did not count on the possibility of appealing his conviction, thereby securing and protecting his rights, regardless of the rank or position held, and regardless of the jurisdiction established as competent for his trial. Moreover, the Court holds that the State failed to demonstrate how, in a trial by a panel of three judges of the highest court of justice, Mr. Alibux was afforded full due process, in particular, the right to appeal the judgment, in violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. B.5 The subsequent adoption of a remedy of appeal 107. In regard to the arguments raised by the State in the sense that Mr. Alibux had the opportunity to challenge the conviction handed down against him (supra para. 82), the Court finds that, based on the evidence submitted in the present case, at the time of the November 5, 2003 judgment, there was no process of appeal available to Mr. Alibux. Such an action, referred to as “remedy of appeal,” was subsequently established in 2007 through an amendment to the IPOHA (supra para. 49). 108. Furthermore, according to that legislative amendment, all persons convicted prior to its implementation, among them, Mr. Alibux, had the right to appeal their convictions within three months of its enactment. Mr. Alibux, however, did not invoke this amendment to appeal his conviction. 109. In this regard, the process set out in Article 8(2)(h) must be an efficient mechanism by which to appeal the judgment that effectively protects the right to review the conviction handed down against Mr. Alibux, in order to allow for the possibility to contest the conviction. Nevertheless, in this case, the process of appeal was created in 2007, after Mr. Alibux had already complied with the term of imprisonment on August 14, 2004116 (supra para. 48), as well as the penalty of ineligibility to serve as minister for a period of three years. 110. In this sense, by not having access to a remedy at the time of his conviction, Mr. Alibux was unable to file a request for review of the judgment. By contrast, the process was 115 116 Case of Barreto Leiva, supra, para. 90. Mr. Alibux completed six months of the year in prison ordered in the judgment and was released on August 14, 2004 (supra para. 48).