B. Considerations of the Court 130. This Court has frequently and extensively addressed the importance and the content of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, and has clarified the standards that should be observed to ensure the guarantee of the right to appeal a judgment before a higher court. Thus, it has indicated that this right is a basic guarantee that must be respected within the framework of due process of law in order to permit the review of an adverse judgment by a different higher judge or court, establishing that “it must be respected as part of due process of law so that a party may appeal to a higher court for review of an adverse judgment.”172 In light of the fact that the judicial guarantees seek to avoid arbitrary decisions, the Court has indicated that the right of appeal would not be effective if it were not guaranteed for every person who has been convicted, because the sentence is a manifestation of the State’s punitive power.173 131. The Court has considered that the right to appeal a judgment is one of the basic guarantees enjoyed by anyone subject to criminal proceedings. Therefore, it has emphasized that the main purpose of this right is to protect the right of defense, and this is achieved by allowing an appeal to be filed to prevent a judicial decision from becoming final if it has been adopted in flawed proceedings, or proceedings with errors or interpretations that would cause undue prejudice to the interests of the defendant.174 Therefore, this right should be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata. This right makes it possible to correct errors or injustices that may have been committed in first instance decisions, since a two-stage judicial ruling gives greater credibility to the State’s judicial actions, while providing greater security and protection to the rights of the convicted person. Accordingly, in order for there to be twofold judicial conformity, it is important that the remedy guarantees the possibility of a full review of the decision being challenged.175 132. In addition, the Court has indicated that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention refers to an ordinary, accessible and effective remedy; in other words, it should not involve complexities that make this right illusory. Thus the requirements for the admission of the remedy should be minimal and should not constitute an obstacle for the remedy to meet its purpose of examining and deciding the complaints presented by the appellant.176 133. The Court has also indicated that those remedies that, owing to the general conditions of the country, or even the particular circumstances of a specific case, are illusory cannot be considered effective.177 The regulations that States establish in their respective appeals systems must ensure that all the conditions are present to ensure that the right to contest a judgment is effective. This means that it is necessary to guarantee a prompt appeal procedure that avoids excessive delays or unjustified Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 158, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina. Merits and reparations. Judgment of July 20, 2020. Series C No. 408, para. 42. 172 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 Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, para. 42. 173 174 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 256. 175 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 257. Cf. Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and Merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 383, para. 88, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 157. 176 177 Cf. Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 257, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, para. 157. 38