American Convention allows for an exception, as Argentina claims, when the accused has been declared guilty by a court that hears the appeal against his acquittal. 92. Article 8(2) of the Convention provides for the protection of basic guarantees in favor of “[e] very person accused of a criminal offense.” In the last paragraph in which it sets forth these guarantees, which is h), it refers to “the right to appeal the judgment before a higher court.” The Court understands that Article 8(2) refers, in general terms, to the minimum guarantees of a person that is subject to an investigation and criminal proceeding. These minimum guarantees must be protected within the context of the various stages of criminal proceedings, which encompass the investigation, accusation, prosecution, and conviction. 93. Bearing in mind that judicial guarantees seek to ensure that anyone involved in a proceeding is not subject to arbitrary decisions, the Court interprets that the right to appeal a judgment cannot be effective unless it is guaranteed in respect of all those who are convicted, since the sentence is the manifestation of the exercise of punitive power of the State.84 It is contrary to the purpose of that particular right that it should not be guaranteed to someone who is convicted in a judgment that overturns an acquittal. To interpret it otherwise would leave the convicted person without the right to an appeal against the conviction. This involves a guarantee to the individual against the State and is not merely a guide for the design of appeal systems within the domestic legal systems of the States Parties to the Convention. 94. To confirm this Court’s interpretation that this is a right that assists the convicted person, it is appropriate to consult the specific language used in Article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights85 which, in referring to the right to appeal the judgment, expressly states that this is a guarantee of “[e]veryone convicted of a crime” (italics added). On another occasion, the Court has held that this rule of the Covenant is "very similar" to Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.86 95. The State has argued that it would be allowed to establish exceptions to the right to appeal criminal convictions (supra para. 68), based on the fact that Article 2 of Protocol 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms allows certain exceptions.87 In this regard, the Court does not agree with the scope that Argentina gives to that provision of the European System to interpret the corresponding provision of the American Convention, precisely because the latter did not provide exceptions as did the European System. 96. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that, under the terms of the protection afforded by Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, Mr. Mohamed was entitled to appeal the ruling handed down by the First Chamber of the Chamber of 84 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 107. 85 Article 14(5) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights states that “Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.” 86 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 84. 87 Article 2 of Protocol 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms states: 1. Everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal shall have the right to have his conviction or sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. The exercise of this right, including the grounds on which it may be exercised, shall be governed by law. 2. This right may be subject to exceptions in regard to offences of a minor character, as prescribed by law, or in cases in which the person concerned was tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal or was convicted following an appeal against acquittal. 29