in respect of all those who are convicted, 352 the sentence being the manifestation of the exercise of the punitive power of the State. 353 256. The Court has considered that the right to appeal the judgment is one of the basic guarantees enjoyed by every person who is subject to a criminal investigation and proceeding. 354 Consequently, the Court has emphasized that the main purpose of the right to challenge a judgment is to protect the right of defense, since it provides the opportunity to file an appeal to prevent a judicial decision from becoming final in the event that it has been adopted in a flawed procedure and contains errors or misinterpretations that would cause undue prejudice to the interests of the defendant. Thus, the appeal must be assured before the judgment becomes res judicata. This right makes it possible to correct errors or injustices that may have been committed in the 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 a double judicial conformity, the Court has indicated that “what matters is that the remedy guarantees the possibility of a full review of the decision being challenged.” 355 257. Furthermore, the Court has held that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention refers to an ordinary, accessible and effective remedy, that is, one that should not involve major complexities that make this right illusory. In this sense, the formalities required for the remedy to be admitted must be minimal and must not constitute an obstacle for it to fulfill its purpose of examining and resolving the grievances alleged by the appellant; in other words, it must seek results or answers to the purpose for which it was conceived. It should be understood that, regardless of the appeals regimen or system adopted by the States Parties and the designation given to the means of challenging the conviction, for it to be effective, it must constitute an adequate mechanism for seeking the correction of an erroneous conviction. This requires an analysis of the factual, evidentiary and legal issues on which the contested judgment is based, since in the judicial activity there is an interdependence between the factual determinations and the application of the law, in such a way that an erroneous determination of the facts implies an erroneous or improper application of law. Consequently, the grounds on which an appeal may be filed must allow for a broad review of the contested aspects of the conviction. 356 258. Furthermore, in the regulations that States develop in their respective appeals systems, they must ensure that the appeal against a conviction respects the minimum procedural guarantees that, under Article 8 of the Convention, are relevant and necessary to resolve the grievances raised by the appellant. 357 259. In this regard, the Court has established that Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) 358 of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of the State Parties to adapt their 352 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, paras. 92 and 93 and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 170. 353 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 Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 170. 354 The Court also applied Article 8(2)(h) in relation to the review of an administrative sanction that ordered a custodial sentence, noting that the right to appeal the decision enshrined a specific type of remedy that should be offered to any person sanctioned with a custodial sentence, as a guarantee of his or her right to defense. Cf. Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 171. 355 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 165, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 171. 356 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, paras. 161, 164 and 165, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 172. 357 Cf. Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, supra, para. 101, and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru, supra, para. 173. 358 Article 2 of the Convention states: “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in 80