her right to nationality, and that due process had been violated. 139 One of Ms. Habbal’s arguments was that notification by publication was not valid, because the summons initiating the proceedings for the revocation of citizenship should have been served at the address on file with the National Register of Voters. She also maintained that the judge should have had more evidence to demonstrate the alleged false statements made in the documents, and to prove the existence of malicious intent. Finally, Ms. Habbal contended that the Federal Judge should have waited for the Criminal Court Judge to determine whether citizenship had been obtained by fraudulent means before deciding whether it should be maintained or revoked. 140 111. In this regard, the Court recalls that in the judgment of June 30, 1995, the Mendoza Court of Appeals confirmed the decision of the Acting Federal Judge. The Court held that none of the questions raised by Ms. Habbal “constitutes sufficient reason to declare the nullity of the judgment challenged, because in reality most of the points are errors in iudicando that do not carry sufficient weight to affect the appellant’s right of defense or to disqualify the judgment as a valid jurisdictional act, which can be remedied, in any case, through an appeal.” 141 Regarding the complaint related to the nullity of the summons, it stated that an appeal for the declaration of nullity “is only appropriate with respect to errors in the judgment, which does not apply in the case under review, since the error pointed out by the appellants goes back to the very beginning of the proceedings: the notification that Ms. Habbal should have received regarding the commencement of the proceedings for the revocation of citizenship at the address registered with the electoral authorities.” 142 For this reason, Ms. Habbal’s attorneys lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Federal Court of Appeals. On October 18, 1995, the Federal Appeals Court of the Province of Mendoza rejected the extraordinary appeal because there was no evidence of the existence of a “federal case” even though the formal requirements for the appeal had been met. 112. In the instant case, the Court notes that various judicial remedies were available to Ms. Habbal to resolve her claims regarding violations of her rights to nationality and due process. These remedies were effective, inasmuch as the judicial authorities that heard them analyzed and responded to the allegations made by Ms. Habbal. The Federal Appeals Court proceeded to analyze the substantive allegations of the alleged victim on appeal, and rejected them based on legal arguments and domestic case law. No omissions of the State’s obligations under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention were observed. 143 The Court reiterates that the effectiveness of a remedy should not be evaluated based on whether it produces a favorable result for the complainant (supra para. 108). Therefore, in this case it is not for this Court to question alleged errors of law by the domestic courts which ruled on the appeals, since their assessment is not arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable. 144 Cf. Note presented by Dr. Carlos Varela Álvarez, on November 2, 1994 (evidence file, folio 82), and Documentary evidence of the remedy of appeal and appeal for the declaration of nullity by attorneys Carlos Varela Álvarez and Diego Lavado, submitted in February 1995 (evidence file, folio 87). 139 140 Cf. Documentary evidence for the remedy of appeal and appeal for the declaration of nullity prepared by attorneys Carlos Varela Álvarez and Diego Lavado, submitted in February 1995 (evidence file, folio 96). 141 107). 142 109). Cf. Judgment of Court 8 of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza of June 30, 1995 (evidence file, folio Cf. Judgment of Court 8 of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza of June 30, 1995 (evidence file, folio 143 Cf. Judgment of Court 8 of the Federal Court of Appeals of Mendoza of June 30, 1995 (evidence file, folio 109 to 111). 144 Cf. inter alia, ECHR [Grand Chamber], S., V. and A. v. Denmark, Nos. 35553/12, 36678/12 and 36711/12, judgment of October 22, 2018, para. 148. 37