19 question. This is part of a criminal proceeding, including the processing of the ordinary challenges filed against the judgment.99 62. The parallels between the remedies provided for by both rights are, at times, evident, especially in the manner of substantiation. Both must be effective, accessible, and must respect the framework of due process of law set forth in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. Nevertheless, the right to judicial protection (Article 25) is broad and general, to protect the rights recognized by the Constitution, the laws of the State concerned, or the American Convention, while the other right (8(2)(h)) is limited to promoting the review of a decision within the context of a process which can include the determination of rights and obligations of both a criminal, as well as a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 100 63. To understand the difference between the two, it is also necessary to consider that those two recourses are not the only ones provided for in the American Convention; for instance, on another note, we have the recourse of pardon or clemency relied upon in the regulation of capital punishment established in Article 4(6) of the American Convention. 101 Likewise, we have the remedy set forth in Article 7(6) of the foregoing international instrument, which provides for the right of individuals to recourse to a competent court in order for that court to decide, without delay, on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention, or even of the threat that his liberty will be deprived. 102 64. The distinction between each of the remedies in relation to the provisions of Article 25 of the American Convention has not always been clear. In fact, in the beginning of InterAmerican jurisprudence, formulas combining remedies with Article 25 of the American Convention were accepted, as was the case with respect to Article 7(6) of said international instrument in regard to the writ of habeas corpus.103 However, the recent jurisprudential trend is clear in that it tends to separate and confine them to their specific domains of application. It should be noted that this task is still incomplete in various respects and, in many cases, it is very difficult to realize these differentiations with absolute precision due to the natural interaction or overlap of the substantive or qualifying rights, and to the different configurations of judicial remedies in each State against which the Inter-American Court is competent to hear cases. 65. With respect to the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court embodied in Article 8(2)(h), the Inter-American Court has consistently avoided, in any way, to confuse this recourse with the provisions of Article 25, which provides for the right to an effective legal remedy. In other words, the Inter-American Court has identified that the remedy enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention is not the process of appeal (usually named that in domestic law) set forth in Article 8(2)(h) thereof. 99 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 159. 100 Cf. Case of de la “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 149. 101 See, for example, the decision in the Case of Fermín Ramírez V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 105 to 110. 102 García Ramírez, Sergio. Due Process. Standards of the Inter-American Jurisprudence [Debido Proceso. Criterios de la Jurisprudencia Interamericana]. México, Porrúa, 2012, págs. 49 and 50. 103 Cf. Habeaus Corpus in Emergency Situations (arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series to No. 8, para.32 and et seq..