15 standard at the time was applied in this Advisory Opinion when interpreting what rights that are not subject to derogation in a state of emergency, since then, on rare occasion has this standard been used by the Inter-American Court and has not been developed in regard to all possible implications. II. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION (ARTICLE 25) AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT TO A HIGHER COURT (ARTICLE 8(2)(H)) A) The scope of the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court (Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention) 47. Article 8(2) of the American Convention provides for the protection of basic guarantees (in reality, the rights that constitute due process of law) in favor of “[e]very person accused of a criminal offense.” In the last paragraph in which it sets forth these rights, subsection (h), it protects the “right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” The Inter-American Court understands that Article 8(2) refers, in general terms, to the minimum guarantees of a person who is subject to an investigation and criminal proceedings. These minimum guarantees must be protected within the context of the various stages of criminal proceedings, which encompass the investigation, accusation, prosecution, and conviction.71 48. Since the case of Herrera Ulloa, the Inter-American Court has considered that the right to appeal a judgment is an essential guarantee that must be respected as part of due process of law, so that a party may turn to a different and higher court for revision of a judgment that was unfavorable to that party’s interests. 72 This is why the Court has determined that the right to file an appeal against a judgment must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata, because the aim is to protect the right of defense by creating a remedy to prevent a flawed ruling, containing errors that are to the detriment of a person’s interests, from becoming final.73 49. Therefore, the right to review by a higher court, expressed by means of the complete review of the conviction, ratifies the grounds and provides more credibility to the judicial acts of the State and, at the same time, offers more security and protection to the rights of the accused.74 50. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has indicated that the right to appeal the judgment embodied in the Convention is not satisfied merely because there is a higher court than the one that tried and convicted the accused and to which the latter has or may have access. For a true review of the judgment, in the sense required by the American Convention, the higher court must have the jurisdictional authority to take up the specific case in question. It is important to underscore the fact that from first to last instance, a 71 Cf. Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 91. 72 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. 73 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. 74 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 89.