42 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 144 accused, especially the right of defense and the right to due process. . 188. For its part, the ICCPR’s Human Rights Committee has repeatedly held that: 145 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. A review that is limited to the formal or legal aspects of the conviction without any consideration whatsoever of the facts is not sufficient under the Covenant. 146 189. The IACHR echoes the observation by the ICCPR’s Human Rights Committee to the effect that the right of appeal does not necessarily mean a retrial or a new “hearing” if the court that hears 147 the appeal is not prevented to study the facts of the case. What the norm requires is the opportunity to point out and get an answer to possible errors of various kinds that the judge or the court may have made, without precluding a priori certain categories such as the facts and the weighing and taking of evidence. The manner and means through which the review is conducted will depend on the nature of the questions raised and the characteristics of the criminal procedural system in the State in question. 190. It should be noted that the American Convention “does not endorse any specific criminal procedural system. It gives the States the liberty to determine which one they prefer, as long as they respect the guarantees established in the Convention itself, the internal legislation, other applicable 148 international treaties, the unwritten norms, and the imperative stipulations of international law.” 191. It is up to the State to order the measures necessary to ensure that its criminal procedural system conforms to its international obligations in the area of human rights, especially the minimum guarantees of due process as set forth in Article 8 of the American Convention. Thus, for example, in the case of criminal procedural systems like Argentina’s, which operates mainly by the principles of the orality and immediacy of the proceedings, States are required to ensure that those principles do not involve exclusions or restrictions of the scope of the review that the court authorities have the authority to perform. Furthermore, a court’s review of a ruling ought not to pervert the principles of orality and immediacy. 144 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, November 18, 1997, paragraphs 261- 262. 145 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. 146 UN Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 (2007). Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 48. See also: Aliboev v. Tajikistan, Communication No.985/2001, Decision of October 18, 2005; Khalilov v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 973/2001, Decision adopted on March 30, 2005; Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia, Communications Nos. 623-627/1995, Decision adopted on April 6, 1998, and Saidova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 964/2001, decision adopted on July 8, 2004. 147 UN Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 (2007). Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 48. 148 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 66.