29 the right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court. The Court has understood that this right consists in an essential minimum guarantee that “must be respected under due process of law in order to permit a sentence to be reviewed by a different and higher judge or court […].”103 Bearing in mind that the judicial guarantees seek to ensure that the defendant in proceedings is not subject to arbitrary decisions, the Court has interpreted that the right to appeal the judgment cannot be effective if the State does not guarantee respect for everyone who has been convicted,104 because a conviction is the manifestation of the State’s punitive power.105 The Court has considered the right to appeal the judgment as one of the minimum guarantees of anyone who is subject to a criminal investigation and proceedings.106 114. The Court has also indicated that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention refers to an ordinary, accessible and effective remedy; in other words, it should not require great complexity that would render this right illusory. Therefore, minimum formalities should be required for the remedy to be admitted and these should not constitute an obstacle for it to fulfill its purpose of examining and deciding the grievances argued by the appellant; that is, it should obtain results that respond to the purpose for which it was conceived. It should be understood that, irrespective of the appeal regime or system adopted by the States Parties and the name given to the means for appealing against a conviction, for this to be effective it must constitute an appropriate means to obtain the rectification of an erroneous conviction. To this end, it must be able to examine the factual, evidentiary and legal questions on which the contested judgment was based because, in the jurisdictional activity, there is interdependence between the factual determinations and the application of the law, so that an erroneous determination of the facts entails an erroneous or undue application of the law. Consequently, the grounds for the admission of the remedy should make it possible to undertake a wide-ranging control of the contested aspects of the judgment.107 The right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court may be conceived as the expression of the right to an effective judicial remedy pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Convention. 115. This Court recalls that Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza were sentenced to death by the judge of the First Criminal Trial Court of Escuintla on October 4, 1993. At the time the judgment was notified to Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza and to their lawyers, they filed an appeal against the said first instance judgment,108 and this was heard by the Twelfth Chamber of the Appellate Court. The latter issued its ruling confirming the judgment on December 1, 1993, after assuming jurisdiction and conducting an analysis of the contested judgment pursuant to article 730 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,109 and after reviewing the body of evidence incorporated into the proceedings and agreeing with the Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 47. 104 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, paras. 92 and 93, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 47. 105 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 107, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 47. 106 Cf. Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 85, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 47. 107 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, paras. 161, 164 and 165, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 48. 108 Indeed, it can be seen from the records of the notification of the judgment dated October 4, 1993, that both the convicted men, Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza, and their representatives, LCC and Edy Iván Bocanegra Conde, noted “I appeal” next to their signature (file of procedure before the Commission, fs. 663 to 665). This is corroborated by the decision of the First Criminal Trial Court of Escuintla, of October 12, 1993, admitting the “Remedy of appeal filed in the notifications of the judgment of October 4 this year, by the defendants, ROBERTO GIRÓN, a single last name, and PEDRO CASTILLO MENDOZA, and by the defense counsel [LCC] and Edy Iván Bocanegra Conde, […]” (file of helpful evidence submitted by the representatives, f. 3121). 109 “Article 730. As a result of an appeal or consultation, the second instance court shall make a comprehensive analysis of the first instance judgment, whether it favors or prejudices the person who has filed the remedy or the other procedural subjects.” Code of Criminal Procedure, August 1973, supra. 103