18 61. The Commission has stated that every proceeding must have the necessary elements for proper balance between the parties, for the adequate defense of their interests and rights. This implies, among other things, that the adversarial principle prevail.40 In the same sense, the European Court of Human Rights has established that the principle of equal arms in the criminal proceeding is one of the implications of a fair trial, in which each party has a reasonable opportunity to present its case in circumstances that do not place it at a disadvantage vis-à-vis its adversary.41 In other words, courts have the authority to modify the legal charges in the proceeding, provided that they have guaranteed the defendant an adequate opportunity for his defense; i.e. he should be notified of the change and given a chance to testify again or present evidence or rebuttals.42 62. In the case of Pélissier and Sassi v. France the European Court ruled that the petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to prepare their defense with respect to the new charge made against them, because they did not learn of the reappraisal of the facts until they received the appeals court’s judgment.43 63. In the instant case, the justification for the judgment was changed without affording an opportunity in the proceeding for Mr. Mohamed to exercise his right to defense because both the complaint appeal and the one for revocation that he filed later were rejected in limine. The Commission therefore concludes that his right to defense was violated, according to the terms of Article 8.2.c of the American Convention. C. Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s right to appeal (Article 8.2.h in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention) 64. Article 8.2.h of the American Convention states: 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 65. Article 1.1 of the Convention states: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 66. The petitioners argue that since Mr. Mohamed was acquitted at the first instance and convicted at the second instance, he had a right to a review of his conviction by the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals. They say they filed the appropriate remedy, which 140 See in this sense, ECHR. Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, Nº. 50230/99, § 34, 3 February 2004; Edwards and Lewis v. the United Kingdom, nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 52, 22 July 2003; Öcalan v. Turkey, no. 46221/99, § 146, 12 March 2003. 241 ECHR. Öçalan v. Turkey. 46221/99, 12 March 2003, para. 140. 42 I/A Court H. R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paras. 73 and 74. 43 I/A Court H. R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 69: has a translation of the Judgment in Pelissier and Sassi v. France 25444/94 [1999] ECHR, paras. 51-54. The original text is in English.