21 defense, this remedy should include a material review of the interpretation of procedural rules that may have influenced the decision in the case when there has been an incurable nullity or where the right to defense was rendered ineffective, and also with respect to the interpretation of the rules on the weighing of evidence, whenever they have led to an erroneous application or non-application of those rules. […] The remedy should also allow the higher court a relatively simple means to examine the validity of the judgment appealed in general, as well as to monitor the respect for fundamental rights of the accused, especially the right of defense and the right to due process.53 78. The ICCPR Human Rights Committee has repeatedly established that:54 The right to have one’s conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal established under article 14, paragraph 5, imposes on the State party a duty to review substantively, both on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence and of the law, the conviction and sentence, such that the procedure allows for due consideration of the nature of the case. A review that is limited to the formal or legal aspects of the conviction without any consideration whatsoever of the facts is not sufficient under the Covenant.55 79. The African Commission has said that for an appeal to be effective, the jurisdiction appealed to must give objective and impartial consideration to the elements of fact and law presented.56 80. The IACHR echoes the observation by the ICCPR’s Human Rights Committee to the effect that the right of appeal does not necessarily mean a retrial or a new “hearing” if the court that hears the appeal is not prevented to study the facts of the case.57 What the norm requires is the opportunity to point out and get an answer to possible errors of various kinds that the judge or the court may have made, without a priori excluding certain categories such as the facts, the law and the admission and the weighing and analysis of evidence. The manner and means through which the review is conducted will depend on the nature of the questions raised and the characteristics of the criminal procedural system in the State in question. 81. It should be noted that the American Convention “does not endorse any specific criminal procedural system. It gives the States the liberty to determine which one they prefer, as long as they respect the guarantees established in the Convention itself, the internal legislation, 153 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, November 18, 1997. paras. 261-262. 254 The language of Article 14.5 of the ICCPR is essentially the same as that of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention, so the UN Human Rights Committee’s interpretations of the content and scope of that article are relevant as guidelines for interpretation of 8.2.h of the American Convention. 355 United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 (2007). Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 48. See also: Aliboev v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 985/2001, Decision of October 18, 2005; Khalilov v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 973/2001, Decision adopted on March 30, 2005; Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia, Communications No. 623-627/1995, Decision adopted on April 8, 1998, and Saidova v. Tajikistan, Communication No. 964/2001, Decision adopted on July 8, 2004. 56 African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, case of Malawi African Association et al. v. Mauritania. Spanish translation by the IACHR, original in French. 057 UN Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 (2007). before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para. 48. Article 14. Right to equality