exists between the determination of the facts and the application of the law, so that an erroneous determination of the facts entails an incorrect application of the law. Consequently, the grounds for the admissibility of the appeal should make an extensive control of the contested sentence possible. 318 246. Furthermore, the Court considers that, in the rules that States develop in their respective appeals systems, they must ensure that this remedy against a conviction respects the minimum procedural guarantees that, under Article 8 of the Convention, are relevant and necessary to decide the grievances claimed by the appellant, which does not mean that a new trial must be conducted. 319 247. In this specific case, the Court also finds it desirable to emphasize that the right to appeal the judgment is also provided for in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 40(2)(b)(v) states that: “every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees: […] to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to law.” In this regard, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has interpreted that, according to this provision, “[t]he child has the right to appeal against the decision by which he is found guilty of the charge(s) brought against him/her and against the measures imposed as a consequence of this guilty verdict. This appeal should be decided by a higher, competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body; in other words, a body that meets the same standards and requirements as the one that dealt with the case in the first instance.” 320 It has also considered that this right “is not limited to the most serious offences.” 321 Therefore, the right to appeal the judgment becomes especially relevant when determining the rights of children, when they have been sentenced to imprisonment for the perpetration of offenses. C.2.1. The right to appeal the judgments convicting César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández 248. Taking into account the arguments of the parties and the proven facts regarding the proceedings against the presumed victims, the Court will determine whether their right to appeal the judgment that sentenced them to life imprisonment and reclusion for life, respectively, was violated. 249. Among other remedies, the presumed victims filed appeals in cassation against the judgments convicting them. As shown in the following paragraphs, under the national legislation on criminal procedure, and that of the province of Mendoza, cassation is the appropriate remedy against a judgment that hands down a criminal conviction against an individual who commits offenses while under 18 years of age. 250. The national Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the appeal in cassation in the following terms: 322 318 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 100. 319 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 101. 320 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10, “Children’s rights in juvenile justice”, CRC/C/GC/10, 25 April 2007, para. 60. 321 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 10, “Children’s rights in juvenile justice”, CRC/C/GC/10, 25 April 2007, para. 60. 322 Cf. National Code of Criminal Procedure (file of annexes to the submission of the case, tome VII, folios 4180 to 4184). 81