conviction, in order for it to be effective, it must constitute an appropriate means for attempting to correct a wrongful conviction. This requires it to analyze questions of fact, evidence, and law upon which the contested judgment is based, since in judicial activity there is interdependence between the factual determinations and the application of law in such a way that an erroneous finding implies a wrong or improper application of law. Consequently, the reasons for which the remedy is admissible should allow for extensive control of the contested aspects of the sentence. 102. The Court also considers that the regulations that States develop in their respective systems of review, must ensure that an appeal against a conviction respects the minimum procedural guarantees that are relevant and necessary under Article 8 of the Convention to resolve grievances raised by the appellant, which does not necessarily imply a new trial. D.3) Regarding Mr. Mohamed’s alleged inability to appeal the conviction and the procedural mechanisms to which he had access within the Argentine legal system in light of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention 103. The Court points out that it is not a disputed fact that the legal system applied to Mr. Mohamed did not contemplate any ordinary criminal recourse to enable him to appeal his conviction (supra para. 50). In this regard, the Court has considered proven that the conviction of second instance was a final judgment that could be appealed only through a special federal recourse and a subsequent motion for review (supra paras. 51 and 56). 104. As to the special appeal under analysis in this case, its admissibility is decided by the same court which issued the sentence that is being contested, and if admitted, it is decided on the merits by the Supreme Court of Justice of (supra para. 51). The appeal is governed by the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, which in turn refers to Law 48 of 1863, which establishes the following procedural requirements: 1) when in a trial, the validity of the treaty, a law of Congress, or of an authority exercised in the name of the Nation is questioned, and the decision goes against its validity; 2) when the validity of a law, decree or provincial authority has been called into question under the claim of being abhorrent to the National Constitution, treaties, or laws of Congress, and the decision was in favor of the validity of the law or provincial authority; 3 ) when the interpretation of a clause of the Constitution, a treaty, or act of Congress, or a committee exercised on behalf of the national authority has been questioned and the decision is against the validity of the title, right, privilege or exemption of that clause, and it is subject to litigation.96 105. Based on said regulation, and on the expert opinions received by this Court, it is possible to confirm that the aforementioned special federal recourse is not a remedy under criminal procedure to challenge a conviction, but rather it is an exceptional recourse regulated by the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, which has its own purpose in the Argentine legal system. Moreover, the causal elements that condition the admissibility of such a remedy are limited to review issues relating to the validity of a law, treaty, or constitutional provision, or the arbitrariness of a judgment, factual and evidentiary issues, as well as those of a non-constitutional legal nature. 106. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and bearing in mind that the State argued that the special federal appeal could have guaranteed the right to appeal a conviction, the Court will make some additional observations in its examination of the treatment given by the judicial bodies in this case to the actions brought by Mr. Mohamed. Because Mr. 96 Supra note 47. 31