the nature and scope of the claims filed by Mr. Gorigoitía’s defense attorney were conditioned by the grounds for admission of the appeal. The article established that an appeal could be filed for two reasons: non-observance or erroneous application of the substantive law; and nonobservance of the rules established by the Code under penalty of inadmissibility, expiration, or nullity. The Court observes, as it has done in other cases,77 that according to the rules established for the cassation appeal, matters of fact and/or evidence could not be specifically reviewed by a higher court.78 The Court finds that Mr. Gorigoitía's defense team framed its arguments for admissibility under one of the grounds established in the law itself for the admissibility of the appeal and in accordance the practice of interpretation of these regulations at the domestic level. The Court takes note of the opinion given by expert witness Diego Camaño before the Court, that: The judgments handed down by the correctional judges and the Criminal Chambers— whether acquittals or convictions—could only be challenged through an extraordinary appeal, subject to rigid ritual formalities; with severe procedural limitations; and limitations as to the nature of the grounds for the claim that, according to a rigorous interpretation by the higher court (the SCJM), left no room for any possible review of issues of fact or evidence. 52. The Court notes that although the appeal filed formally argued a lack of adequate grounds, central to Mr. Gorigoitía's defense was a series of arguments aimed at questioning the assessment that the First Chamber had made of the facts of the case and of how they fit or not the negligent nature of the crime of homicide. According to the defense’s arguments, it was this inadequate evaluation of the facts that led to Mr. Gorigoitía's conviction, and the conviction should therefore be reevaluated via cassation appeal. This Court observes that it was precisely because of this central aspect of the claim that the Supreme Court of Mendoza decided to reject the appeal, since it was dismissed “‘in limine’ because the arguments for the appeal show, altogether, a discrepancy in judgment on the part of the appellant insofar as the criteria of the Chamber for evidentiary material incorporated legally into the dispute, as the Cassation Court cannot review or judge the grounds for a conviction issued by the a-quo Court.” The Supreme Court of Mendoza limited itself to reiterating some of the reasoning on which the First Chamber relied to find Mr. Gorigoitía guilty, but without making any assessment as to whether the evaluation had been carried out adequately in accordance with domestic law. 53. The Court reiterates that Article 8(2)(h) refers to the right to an ordinary, accessible, and effective remedy that does not make illusory the right to appeal a ruling to a higher court. In this sense, the Court has established that the required formalities should not constitute an obstacle to the appeal enabling a review of the factual, evidentiary, and legal issues that could have led to an error in the judgment. The importance of complying with this obligation is due to the fact of a relationship between an erroneous determination of the facts and an improper application of the law, for which reason the review that must be conducted in compliance with the right to appeal should permit the judge to review the judgment broadly. This is the pleading that Mr. Gorigoitía’s defense team made in its writ of cassation appeal, which was rejected “in limine” for requesting a revaluation of the criteria of the First Chamber in matters of facts and assessment of evidence. Consequently, the Court finds that the refusal on the part of the Supreme Court of Mendoza to review the merits of the issue raised by Mr. Gorigoitía's defense counsel constituted an international illegal act insofar as it resulted in a breach of the duty to comprehensively review the ruling established in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. 54. The Court will not rule on the alleged violations of Article 25(1) of the American Convention, raised by the Commission in its Report on the Merits and the representatives in the pleadings and Cf. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 26, para. 253, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 159. 78 Cf. Expert opinion of Alberto Bovino (transferred from the case of Mendoza et al. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 26, para. 253). 77 17