43 192. As for the remedy’s accessibility, the Commission considers that, in principle, the rules requiring that a remedy meet certain minimum requirements is not incompatible with the right recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. Those minimum requirements include, for example, the filing of the remedy, since Article 8(2)(h) does not require automatic review, or the rule stipulating a reasonable period of time within which the remedy must be filed. However, in certain circumstances, the court’s refusal to hear an appeal because the latter does not meet the formal requirements established either by statute or by judicial practice in a given region may result in a violation of the right to appeal a judgment. 193. Finally, the right to appeal a judgment is one of a set of guarantees that taken together 149 constitute due process and that are inextricably interlinked. Therefore, the right to appeal a judgment must be interpreted in conjunction with other procedural guarantees if the characteristics of the case so require. An example is the close relationship that exists between, the right to appeal and a duly reasoned 150 judgment and the possibility of seeing the complete record of any oral proceedings. The relationship between the guarantee protected under Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention and access to an adequate defense also enshrined in Article 8(2) of the American Convention is especially relevant. The ICCPR’s Human Rights Committee has written that “[t]he right to have one’s conviction 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 order that their 151 concerns may be ventilated at the appeal level.” . 194. 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. 2. Analysis of the specific cases 195. The Commission observes that the defense attorneys representing some of the victims filed cassation motions, constitutionality motions and special federal appeals to challenge the convictions. Given the framework of laws governing the various types of appeal, as described in the section on proven facts, including each one’s content, the Commission observes that the debate is centered around the question of whether the cassation motion under Argentine law, complies with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. Accordingly, the Commission will evaluate the State’s response to the cassation motions filed on behalf of the victims, taking into special consideration the text of the articles regulating the cassation motion and the judicial practice on the subject. 196. In general terms, and as established in the section on proven facts, at paragraphs XX-XX above, the Commission notes that given the applicable laws on the subject and the long judicial tradition of 152 a narrow interpretation of those laws, any claim that did not fit within that narrow interpretation of what had traditionally been regarded as “reviewable” via a cassation motion had little chance of prospering. 197. Thus, it is understandable that in endeavoring to get the motions admitted and decided, the victims’ defense attorneys would opt not to seek a review of question of fact or the weighing of evidence, but instead mainly argued that the law had been misapplied, that the sentence was unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary. It is not the function of this Commission to determine what issues 149 I/A Court H.R., The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 120. 150 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, paragraphs 47, 48, 49 and 50. 151 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. 152 As previously observed, the Supreme Court acknowledged this practice in the “Casal judgment.” See, Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Case No. 1681. Matías Eugenio Casal et al. Ruling of September 20, 2005.