18 57. In the case of Velez Loor, the Inter-American Tribunal also considered that a situation of factual impediment to ensure a real access to the right to appeal, as well a situation of lack of guarantees and judicial insecurity, may violate Article 8(2)(h).90 58. Moreover, the Inter-American Court has further determined that the State Parties to the American Convention are obligated to, in terms of Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to adapt their domestic law in accordance with the parameters established in conjunction to Article 8(2)(h) of such international instrument. The same holds true even where judges exercise control for conformity with the Convention in order to ensure the right to appeal a judgment pursuant to Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and this Court’s jurisprudence. 91 B) The differences between the rights provided in Articles 8(2)(h) (right to appeal the judgment to a higher court) and 25 (judicial protection) 59. In the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, an increasing development of the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention can be observed. It is also possible to note that the independent analysis of this provision of the American Convention forms part of a jurisprudential era in which the Court has attempted to be much more specific in describing the content of each of the rights and clauses that are framed within Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. With this, the jurisprudence which originally encompassed the multiple and complex rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on the general notion of the right of “access to justice sensu lato” has been enriched. In this manner, the Inter-American Court has increasingly delineated with more precision the fact that each of the rights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning and scope.92 60. As has already been mentioned, Article 25 of the Convention guarantees the existence of a simple, prompt, and effective remedy before a judge or competent tribunal.93 Owing to this, the State Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25),94 remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)),95 all within the general obligation of those same States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the American Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).96 The Inter-American Court has considered that the meaning of the protection 90 Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 180. 91 Case of Mendoza et al. V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Series C No. 260, para. 332. 92 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 171. 93 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63; and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No 228. para. 91. 94 Cf. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90; and Case of Massacres de Río Negro V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C. No. 250, para. 191. 95 Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93; and Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82.