110. Regarding the State’s argument concerning a decision by the Superior Court of Justice of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires wherein it considered “formally admissible” an appeal on unconstitutionality and the “guarantee of legal defense and the principle of the right to review by a higher court had been protected, (supra para. 68), the Court considers that this, by itself, is not sufficient for Argentina to comply with the burden of demonstrating the effectiveness of the special federal appeal. 98 As is evident, this does not involve an argument that specifically refers to the latter remedy nor does it grant minimum legal certainty that the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice would allow challenges against convictions and effectively ensure the aforesaid right to appeal a judgment. 111. The Court has found that in this case the limited scope of the special federal appeal is evident from the decision handed down by the First Chamber of the Chamber of Appeals, which dismissed in limine the appeal filed by Mr. Mohamed’s defense attorney given that the arguments concerned “matters of fact, evidence and common law, which ha[d] been assessed and disputed in the contested judgment” (supra para. 54). 112. The Court further emphasizes the seriousness of the fact that, in this case, Mr. Mohamed was not guaranteed the right to appeal the conviction, taking into account that it appears that deficiencies arose in guaranteeing the right of defense in the second instance of the criminal proceedings against the appeal filed against the acquittal. The Court notes that in the criminal proceedings, the Public Prosecutor accused Mr. Mohamed of manslaughter, and subsequently requested the stay of proceedings, and then, after the acquittal in the first instance, appealed without stating the reasons for the appeal (without stating grievances). The complainant also appealed and filed grievances or grounds for the appeal, but there is no evidence in criminal proceedings that the brief had been provided to Mr. Mohamed’s defense attorney, so that he could render statements on those grievances prior to the issuance of the judgment of the second instance which overturned the acquittal and criminally convicted Mr. Mohamed. 113. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Argentine criminal procedure system that was applied to Mr. Mohamed did not guarantee an accessible and effective ordinary appeal that allowed for a review of the conviction against Mr. Mohamed under the terms of Article 8(2)(h) the American Convention, and it also considers that the special federal appeal and the motion for review, while safeguarding access to the first, were not effective remedies to guarantee the protected right in this specific case. D.4) Obligation to Adopt Domestic Legal Effects (Article 2 of the American Convention) in relation to the right to appeal the judgment 114. Article 2 of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of States Party to adapt their domestic legislation to its provisions in order to ensure the rights set forth therein. The Court has held that this obligation involves an action on two fronts. First, the suppression of provisions and practices that result in the violation of the guarantees set forth in the Convention. Secondly, the adoption of rules and the development of practices leading to the effective observance of those guarantees.99 115. The Court points out that the facts of this case involve a necessary relationship between Mr. Mohamed’s right to appeal his conviction, on the one hand, and the 98 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, para. 88, and Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 25. 99 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 207, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 243. 33