17 understood that, regardless of the regimen or system of appeals adopted by States Parties and of the name given to a means for challenging the conviction, in order for it to be effective, it must constitute an appropriate means for attempting to correct a wrongful conviction. This requires it to analyze questions of fact, evidence, and law upon which the contested judgment is based, since in judicial activity there is interdependence between the factual determinations and the application of law in such a way that an erroneous finding implies a wrong or improper application of law. Consequently, the reasons for which the remedy is admissible should allow for extensive control of the contested aspects of the sentence.83 54. Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has considered that “the regulations that States develop in their respective systems of review, must ensure that an appeal against a conviction respects the minimum procedural guarantees that are relevant and necessary under Article 8 of the Convention to resolve grievances raised by the appellant, which does not necessarily imply a new trial […].”84 55. The higher court or judge in charge of deciding the remedy filed against a criminal judgment has a special duty to protect the judicial guarantees and due process to which all parties to the criminal proceeding are entitled, in accordance with the principles governing that proceeding.85 Thus, this Court has indicated that the “possibility of ‘appealing the judgment’ must be accessible; the kind of complex formalities that would render this right illusory must not be required.”86 56. “Regardless of the label [that is] given to the existing remedy to appeal a judgment, what matters is that the remedy guarantees a full review of the decision being challenged.”87 “In this respect, while States have a margin of discretion in regulating the exercise of that remedy, they may not establish restrictions or requirements that infringe upon the very essence of the right to appeal a judgment.”88 In the case of Barreto Leiva, the Inter-American Court established that even in the context of special judicial privileges for the prosecution of high-ranking government authorities, the State must allow the accused the possibility of appealing a condemnatory judgment.89 83 Cf. Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, para. 100. 84 Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 101. 85 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 163. 86 Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 164. 87 Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 165. 88 Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 179. 89 Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 90.