facts would mean an erroneous or undue application of the law. Consequently, the grounds for admitting the remedy must make it possible to review broadly the aspects of the guilty verdict being challenged.101 113. The IACHR has found that “the right to appeal does not necessarily entail a full retrial or a new ‘hearing,’ as long as the court conducting the review can look at the factual dimensions of the case.102 What the norm requires is the opportunity to point out and get an answer to possible errors of various kinds that the judge or the court may have made, without precluding a priori categories such as the facts and weighting and taking of evidence.”103 114. In this case, the Commission finds that there is no remedy with the scope described above for reviewing the criminal conviction. In this regard, according to the Criminal Procedural Code, the only remedy that can be sought against a guilty verdict on criminal matters issued by a sentencing court is a cassation remedy for failing to observe or erroneously applying a legal provision. This remedy would not make it possible to broadly review the factual, evidentiary, and legal questions. 115. Based on these considerations, the Commission concludes that the criminal procedural system under which Manuela was convicted did not provide a remedy for challenging a conviction that would comply with the minimum standards required under Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. In this regard, the IACHR finds that the State of El Salvador is responsible for the violation of the right to appeal a judgment established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Manuela. C. The right to privacy,104 the right to health,105 the right to life,106 the right to fair trial,107 and the right to judicial protection108 1. Regarding professional medical confidentiality and its implications with regard to the right to privacy and to sexual and reproductive health. 116. The IACHR recalls that Article 11 of the American Convention protects privacy and family life from the arbitrary actions of State agencies. Although this right is not absolute, any restriction of it must be established by law, have a legitimate aim, and comply with the requirements of suitability, necessity, and proportionality.109 The Commission underscores that the right to privacy has been interpreted broadly by the Inter-American Court. Case of Mohamed vs. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, párr.100. 102 IACHR Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Merits, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica, April 4, 2014, para. 192. 103 IACHR Report No. 172/10, Case 12.561, Merits César Alberto Mendoza et al. (Prison and perpetual imprisonment of minors), Argentina, November 2, 2010, para. 189. 104 The pertinent part of Article 11 reads as follows: 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation; 3. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. 105 Article 26 establishes that “States Parties undertake to adopt measures, both internally and through international cooperation, especially those of an economic and technical nature, with a view to achieving progressively, by legislation or other appropriate means, the full realization of the rights implicit in the economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural standards set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires.” 106 Article 4 of the American Convention establishes that, 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. 107 The pertinent part of Article 8 of the American Convention establishes the following: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 108 The pertinent part of Article 25 of the American Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 109 Inter-American Court. Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, párr.55. 101 21