72 reviewed is also violated if defendants are not informed of the intention of their counsel not to put any arguments to the court, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to seek alternative representation, in 250 order that their concerns may be ventilated at the appeal level.” . 264. Ascertaining whether a right has been violated when an appeal was filed requires a caseby-case analysis that evaluates the concrete facts surrounding the matter brought to the Commission’s attention, based on the general criteria outlined in the preceding paragraphs. The Commission will now examine whether the guarantee protected under Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention was respected in each victim’s case. 3.2 Analysis of the case 265. For the Commission, the petitioners’ right to appeal their conviction to a higher court was violated by Chile’s justice system, by the manner in which the courts that heard their cases applied that right. It is important to point out that under Article 364 of Chile’s Code of Criminal Procedure, “verdicts delivered by an oral criminal trial court are not subject to appeal.” The only recourse against such verdicts is a motion seeking to have the verdict vacated which, under Article 372 of that Code, can only go forward on the grounds set forth therein. 266. The appellate courts and the Supreme Court with which the motions seeking to have the convictions in the present case vacated were filed, gave a particularly narrow interpretation of their jurisdiction to decide the motions, which was that they could only address matters of law, and then on the grounds strictly prescribed law. 267. Given the standards described above regarding the scope of the revision, the Commission considers that the petitioners’ right to appeal their convictions, recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, was violated because they were not afforded the opportunity to have questions of fact or of evidence reviewed because of the preexisting exclusion under domestic law. 4. The right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal 268. The right to a trial before a competent, impartial and independent judge or tribunal is among those that tend to fall victim to the most frequent and serious violations in the anti-terrorist 251 campaigns waged by the States. Yet, this right is one of the fundamental principles of criminal law and informs the guarantees of due process and of an impartial trial. In their counter-terrorism strategies, 252 253 States must take particular pains to respect this right, especially when bringing individuals to trial. The Human Rights Committee wrote that: “The requirement of competence, independence and impartiality of a tribunal in the sense of Article 14, paragraph 1, is an absolute right that is not subject to 254 any exception.” 4.1 The right to a competent judge or tribunal 250 See in this regard, UN Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 (2007). Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 51. 251 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, Executive Summary, paragraph 10. 252 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, Executive Summary, paragraph 18. 253 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/SER.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1, corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 218. 254 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 32 –Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. Doc. UN CCPR/C/GC/32, August 23, 2007, paragraph 19; Human Rights Committee. Communication No. 263/1987, González del Río v. Peru, paragraph 5.2.