49 156 purposes, it is not binding upon judges. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the interpretative tool that the Casal judgment offers is not obvious from its text. 229. Recently the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights observed that the problems preventing a substantive review of convictions in Argentina persist. In the words of the Committee: The Committee notes with concern the absence of procedural law and practice that would guarantee the effective implementation of the right set out in article 14, paragraph 5, of the Covenant throughout the country (article 14 of the Covenant). The State party should take the necessary and effective measures to guarantee the right of every person who is convicted of a crime to have the conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. In this connection, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 32 on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, which emphasizes, in paragraph 48, the need 157 to review substantively the conviction and sentence. 230. In conclusion, the Commission finds that while the Argentine State has made progress in ensuring the right to appeal a judgment, there are still important hurdles to overcome before that right is fully and effectively guaranteed. Thus, and as the recommendations will point out, the State must pursue the process of change instituted with the Casal Judgment and order the legislative and other measures necessary to give full effect to the right recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention. C. Right of defense (articles 8(2)(d) and (e) of the American Convention in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof). 231. Article 8(2), subparagraphs (d) and (e), recognizes the right of defense and provides that: d) the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; e) the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law (…) 232. The Inter-American Court has held that “the legal assistance provided by the State must 158 be effective and, to this end, the State must adopt all appropriate measures.” The Commission considers that the failure to personally notify the defendant of a decision rendered in a criminal proceeding and omissions on the part of a court-appointed defense counsel, can adversely affect a person’s right of self defense at various stages in the proceedings. Argentina’s own Supreme Court has acknowledged the close nexus between personal notification and the right to defend oneself against a court ruling that will 159 make one’s conviction final. 156 The “Casal” judgment states that Article 456 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure lends itself to a narrow and broad interpretation. As the Supreme Court wrote: “(…) it is clear that nothing in subparagraph 2 of Article 456 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure suggests another interpretation is not possible. The narrow interpretation of the scope of the cassation motion is solely the product of this institution’s legislative tradition and history, dating back to its original version. The text itself lends itself to both narrow and broad or liberal interpretation: a liberal interpretation would neither alter nor stretch the rather labored language of the text (…)”. 157 Human Rights Committee. Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 40 of the Covenant. Concluding observations by the Human Rights Committee. Argentina. CCPR/C/ARG/CO/4. March 31, 2010, para. 19. 158 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 159. Citing. Cf. ECHR, Case of Artico v. Italy, Judgment of 13 May 1980, Application No. 6694/74, paragraphs 31-37. 159 See, “Dubra” Judgment, 327:3802; C. 605, L.XXXIX, Judgment of December 23, 2004, where the Supreme Court held that “the person on trial must be personally notified of any decision that would make that person’s conviction final, since it is up to the convicted defendant to decide whether to seek a new ruling; defense counsel does not have that power.” See also P.2456.XL. “Peralta, Josefa Elba/ complaint motion” where the court held that the “jurisprudence of this Supreme Court is that every defendant convicted of a crime must be personally notified of the conviction so that criminal convictions do not become res judicata merely because defense counsel wills it so.”