24 90. The Commission notes that the Supreme Court’s scope for review of the extraordinary appeal is limited to questions concerning the validity of a law, treaty, or constitutional provision, or arbitrariness of a judgment, and not to a review of the facts and the law considered in the judgment. It is an exceptional remedy “with a total lack of legal basis that prevents consideration of the ruling of regular judges as a judgment based on law (…).”61 Moreover, Article 280 of the Civil Procedure Code gives the Court broad power to reject it without examining the merits of the case, so the review that the Supreme Court makes is discretional. 91. In the instant case, Oscar Alberto Mohamed’s special appeal was rejected by the Chamber of Appeals in limine, precisely because it was not an appeal for review of questions of fact, evidence, or law. The Court said in its decision that “This doctrine does not seek to make the Supreme Court a third regular instance, nor to correct erroneous or allegedly erroneous decisions (…).” Inadmissibility was ratified later by the Supreme Court in its rejection of the complaint and revocation motions. 92. From the foregoing, it is evident that the consideration of admissibility was limited to establish the existence or nonexistence of a violation of constitutional guarantees or manifest arbitrariness, not to review the questions of fact, evidence, and law that were alleged. 93. In light of the standards described above, it is incompatible with Article 8.2.h of the American Convention for the right to review to be contingent upon the existence of a violation of constitutional guarantees or manifest arbitrariness. Apart from such violations or arbitrariness, every individual who is convicted, even at the second instance following acquittal at the first instance, has the right to request a review of various questions and to have them effectively analyzed by the higher court that does the revision, precisely in order to correct possible errors of interpretation, weighing of evidence or analysis, just as Mr. Mohamed’s counsel argued at each instance to which he appealed. 94. In conclusion, in the instant case, given the limitations imposed by the Chamber of Appeals and the Supreme Court, Oscar Alberto Mohamed did not get a review of his conviction in order to correct possible errors by the respective judge, and the State therefore violated to his detriment the right established in Article 8.2.h of the Convention, in connection to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 95. Finally, the Commission notes that the right to appeal the judgment is part of the body of procedural guarantees that ensures the due process of law, which are inextricably interlinked.62 Therefore, the right to appeal the judgment must be interpreted together with other procedural guarantees if the characteristics of the case require it. An example is the close connection between the right to appeal the judgment and the opportunity to have the full acts of the file, including trial acts in the case of oral systems.63 There is an especially relevant link between the guarantee set forth in Article 8.2.h of the American Convention and access to adequate counsel, also enshrined in article 8.2 of the Convention. In this regard the CCPR 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 opportunity to seek alternative 161 Petitioners’ note of April 1, 1996. Annex, Judgment on the special appeal handed down by the First Chamber of the Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters on July 4, 1995. 2 62 I/A Court H. R., The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para.120. 363 In this sense, see United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 (2007). Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 47, 48, 49, and 50.