15 ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms” pursuant to the provisions of Article 1(1) of the American Convention. From this general obligation is derived the right of every person, set out in Article 25(1), “to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention.”69 46. Thus, it is in this manner that Article 25(1) of the Pact of San Jose provides that the guarantee established therein applies not only to the rights contained in the American Convention, but also to those that are recognized by the Constitution or by law. 70 While this standard at the time was applied in this Advisory Opinion when interpreting what rights that are not subject to derogation in a state of emergency, since then, on rare occasion has this standard been used by the Inter-American Court and has not been developed in regard to all possible implications. II. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION (ARTICLE 25) AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE JUDGMENT TO A HIGHER COURT (ARTICLE 8(2)(H)) A) The scope of the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court (Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention) 47. Article 8(2) of the American Convention provides for the protection of basic guarantees (in reality, the rights that constitute due process of law) in favor of “[e]very person accused of a criminal offense.” In the last paragraph in which it sets forth these rights, subsection (h), it protects the “right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” The Inter-American Court understands that Article 8(2) refers, in general terms, to the minimum guarantees of a person who is subject to an investigation and criminal proceedings. These minimum guarantees must be protected within the context of the various stages of criminal proceedings, which encompass the investigation, accusation, prosecution, and conviction.71 48. Since the case of Herrera Ulloa, the Inter-American Court has considered that the right to appeal a judgment is an essential guarantee that must be respected as part of due process of law, so that a party may turn to a different and higher court for revision of a judgment that was unfavorable to that party’s interests. 72 This is why the Court has determined that the right to file an appeal against a judgment must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata, because the aim is to protect the right of defense by creating a remedy to prevent a flawed ruling, containing errors that are to the detriment of a person’s interests, from becoming final.73 69 Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series to No. 9, para. 22. 70 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series to No. 9, para. 23. 71 Cf. Case of Mohamed V. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 91. 72 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. 73 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.