verification, and there was also no effective remedy, either on appeal or on cassation to challenge the death sentence. 119. The Court has, in its ongoing case law, referred to the scope and content of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, as well as to the standards that must be observed to ensure the guarantee of the right to appeal the ruling before a higher judge or court. The Court has understood that said right consists of a minimum and fundamental guarantee that “must be respected within the framework of due legal process, in order to allow an adverse sentence to be reviewed by a different judge or court of superior rank [... ]”.104 Bearing in mind that judicial guarantees aim to guarantee that whoever is involved in a process is not subjected to arbitrary decisions, the Court has interpreted that the right to appeal the judgment cannot be effective if it is not guaranteed for everyone who is sentenced,105 since the sentence is the manifestation of State exercising its punitive power.106 120. In addition, the Court held that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention refers to an ordinary, accessible and effective remedy, that is, it should not require greater complexities that render this right unattainable. It must be understood that, regardless of the regime or system for recourse adopted by the States Parties and the denomination they give to the means of challenging the conviction, in order for it to be effective, it must constitute an adequate means to seek the correction of an erroneous conviction. This requires that it be able to analyze the factual, evidentiary and legal issues on which the contested judgment is based, since in the judicial sphere there is an interdependence between the factual determinations and the application of the law, in such a way that an erroneous determination of the facts implies an erroneous or improper application of the law. Consequently, the original grounds of the appeal must allow a broad control of the contested aspects of the conviction. 107 121. Therefore, the Court notes that the Code of Criminal Procedure considers two remedies that seek to satisfy the right to appeal the judgment: the special appeal remedy and the cassation appeal. The special appeal remedy is regulated as follows in article 430: [t]he sentence may in no case make merit of the evidence or of the facts that are declared proven in accordance with the rules of sound reasoned criticism. It can only refer to them for the application of the substantive law or when there is a clear contradiction with the appealed judgment. 122. From the transcribed legislation it can be deduced that the special appeal remedy is a somewhat limited remedy, since it only allows the review of facts “for the application of the substantive law or when there is a clear contradiction with the appealed judgment.” 123. The cassation appeal is regulated, where relevant, as follows: Article 442. “The court of cassation will hear only the legal errors contained in the appealed decision. It is subject to the facts that have been taken as proven by the sentencing court, and only in cases in which it notices a violation of a constitutional or legal norm, can it make use of annulment and remission for the due correction. 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, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 382, para. 47. 105 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. 106 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. 107 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, paras. 161, 164 and 165, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 48. 104 32