no exceptions. Also, the IACHR emphasizes that the above-indicated evidence was added to the process, and investigative steps such as the February 28, 2008, autopsy, the complaint by the father of the alleged victim, and the investigator's report where she stated that she “would not have committed” the crime that Manuela allegedly committed were added to the criminal proceeding and had an impact on the guilty verdict handed down against the alleged victim. 107. In addition, regarding the legal defense, the IACHR highlights certain deficiencies that impacted the alleged victim’s rights. Specifically, the Commission notes that: (i) there is no indication that the alleged victim was notified of the appointment of her defense attorney on February 28, 2008; (ii) the evidence presented by the defense is thin and limited to offering the testimony of Manuela's mother, without offering up an other expert witness reports to call into question the hypothesis of the prosecutor, such as a second autopsy to determine the cause of death of the body found or to call into question the results of the hydrostatic test, or even to provide evidence to support Manuela’s version of events; (iii) the legal defense failed to highlight certain inconsistencies in the case file, such as the supposed inclusion of a birth certificate for the fetus, which does not exist, or the inconsistencies between the death certificate and the autopsy as far as the date of death, the amount of time the fetus supposedly lives, and the causes of death. 108. In addition, the Commission highlights a grave omission of the defense in its failure to file for any remedy against the judgment finding the alleged victim guilty and sentencing her to 30 years in prison for the crime of aggravated homicide. The petitioner stated that the defense attorney failed to inform her that the judgement could be challenged. The Commission observes that the Salvadoran legislation in force at the time of the guilty verdict only provided for a cassation appeal against guilty verdicts in criminal cases.99 109. Leaving aside the compatibility of the cassation remedy with the right to appeal a judgment recognized in the American Convention, the Commission recalls that the opportunity to appeal the judgment is fundamental for the right to defense.100 It therefore concludes that by failing to submit the cassation remedy, Manuela's defense was manifestly negligent, with the effect of allowing a guilty verdict to become final that was the result that a process that violated minimum guarantees and—as will be shown—was discriminatory. 110. Lastly, the Commission observes that despite the obvious violations of due process described above, the public defender declined to file for remedies or move for the nullification of evidence or investigative steps in which the violations were clear. This omission was evident throughout the process, as well as in the failure to appeal the conviction, as examined in the foregoing paragraphs. In this regard, the manifest omissions of her defense counsel meant that Manuela did not have access to the judicial remedies available to challenge the human rights violations that took place during the initial investigative steps or to challenge the guilty verdict. 111. By virtue of these considerations, the IACHR concludes that the Salvadoran State is responsible for the violation of the articles 8(2)(c), 8(2)(e), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Manuela. 2. The right to appeal a conviction 112. The Commission recalls that a fundamental aspect of the right to defense is the opportunity to appeal a conviction before a higher judge or court, recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. In order for the remedy provided for in domestic legislation to comply with this guarantee, it must provide a suitable means for correcting an erroneous conviction. The remedy, therefore, must be capable of analyzing the factual, evidentiary, and legal basis for the judgment being challenged, given that court judgments entail an interplay between factual determinations and application of the law, such that an erroneous determination of 99 See Criminal Procedural Code of El Salvador, Decree No. 904 of December 13, 1996. IACHR Report No. 79/17, Case 12,650. Merits. Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes. Guatemala, para. 119. 100 20