50 scope of the review, the Court held that regardless of the set of rules or system of appeal adopted by States Parties and of the name given to a means for contesting the conviction, in order for it to be effective, it must constitute an appropriate means for attempting to correct a wrongful conviction.328 This requires a possibility 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 judgment of conviction.329 The Court also explicitly established, along the same lines as the Commission, that the remedy 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 the alleged lower court error or grievance raised by the appellant, 330 which does not necessarily mean that a new trial must be held. 196. Notwithstanding, as for accessibility of the remedy, the Commission considers that, in principle, regulation of some of the minimum requirements for an appeal to be admissible is not incompatible with the right set forth in Article 8.2.h of the Convention. Some of these minimum requirements are, for example, the actual submission of the appeal – given that Article 8.2.h does not go as far as to require automatic review – or the regulation of a reasonable period of time within which the filing must be submitted. However, in certain circumstances, denial of the appeals based on the failure to meet procedural requirements of form established under the law or shaped by the practices of the court in a particular region, may result in a violation of the right to appeal the judgment. 197. Lastly, the Commission notes that the right to appeal the judgment is woven into the cluster of procedural guarantees, which are inextricably inter-linked and serve to ensure the due process of law.331 Therefore, the right to appeal the judgment must be interpreted in conjunction with other procedural guarantees, should the characteristics of the case so require. By way of example, we can cite the close connection between the right to appeal the judgment and access to a duly reasoned judgment, as well as the possibility to view the complete record of the proceedings including the trial or hearing transcripts in systems of oral proceedings.332 Of particular relevance is the connection between the guarantee set forth in Article 8.2.h of the American Convention and the right to an adequate defense, also enshrined in Article 8.2 of the Convention. Likewise, the Human Rights Committee has established that “the 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 328 IA Ct of HR, Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 245. 329 IA Ct of HR, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 100; Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 245. 330 IA Ct of HR, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 101; Case of Mendoza et al v. Argentina. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 245. 331 IA Ct of HR, 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. 332 UN, Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 “Article 14. Right to equality before the courts and tribunals and to a fair trial.” 2007, paras. 47-50.