70 efficacy without the right of defense at trial and the opportunity to defend oneself against a sentence by 238 means of a proper review. 255. International human rights law does not concern itself with the label given to the existing 239 remedy to appeal a judgment. What matters is that the remedy meets certain standards. First, it must 240 occur before the sentence becomes res judicata and must be decided within a reasonable period, i.e., it must be timely. It must also be an effective remedy; in other words, it must provide results or responses to 241 the end that it was intended to serve, which is to prevent the consummation of an injustice. It must 242 also be accessible, and not require the kind of formalities that would render this right illusory. 256. The Commission must underscore the point that the efficacy of a remedy is closely linked to the scope of the review. This is so because judicial authorities are fallible and can make mistakes that result in injustice. Judicial error is not confined to the application of the law, but may happen in other aspects of the process such as the determination of the facts or the weighing of evidence. Hence, the remedy of appeal will be effective in accomplishing the purpose for which it was conceived if it makes possible a review of such issues without determining a priori that review will only be allowed with respect to certain aspects of the court proceedings. 257. In Abella v. Argentina, the Inter-American Commission wrote the following: Article 8(2)(h) refers to the minimum characteristics of a remedy that serves as a check to ensure a proper ruling in both substantive and formal terms. From the formal standpoint the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court to which the American Convention refers should, in the first place, apply to every first instance judgment with the purpose of examining the unlawful application, the lack of application, or the erroneous interpretation of rules of law based on the operative part of the judgment. The Commission also considers that to guarantee the full right of defense, this remedy should include a material review of the interpretation of procedural rules that may have influenced the decision in the case when there has been an incurable nullity or where the right to defense was rendered ineffective, and also with respect to the interpretation of the rules on the weighing of evidence, whenever they have led to an erroneous application or non-application of those rules.. […] The remedy should also allow the higher court a relatively simple means to examine the validity of the judgment appealed in general, as well as to monitor the respect for fundamental rights of the 243 accused, especially the right of defense and the right to due process. . 258. For its part, the ICCPR’s Human Rights Committee has repeatedly held that: 244 The right to have one’s conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal established under article 14, paragraph 5, imposes on the State party a duty to review substantively, both on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence and of the law, the conviction and sentence, such that the procedure allows for due consideration of the nature of the case. 238 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 252. 239 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 165; UN Human Rights Committee. Communication No. 701/1996, Gómez Vázquez v. Spain, Decision of August 11, 2000, para. 11.1. 240 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. See also, Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Communication No. 1100/202, Bandajevsky v. Belarus, Decision of April 18, 2006, para. 11.13. 241 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 161. 242 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 164. 243 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, November 18, 1997, paragraphs 261- 262. 244 The wording of Article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is very similar to Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. Therefore, the UN Human Rights Committee’s interpretations of the substance and scope of Article 14(5) are useful in interpreting Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.