19 was the special appeal, since the conviction violated constitutional guarantees. The petitioners argue that rejection of this appeal without analyzing its merits violated Mr. Mohamed’s due process guarantees, specifically his right to appeal to a higher court. They say they then filed a complaint motion and appeal for revocation of this judgment of rejection, seeking to have it annulled, but they were also denied, the first as inapplicable and the second as out of order. 67. For its part the State argues that Mr. Mohamed was tried at two instances that fully respected his due process guarantees, so there was no violation of Article 8. The State says there is no requirement in international law for states to provide a higher instance for review of a sentence handed down by an appeals court. It adds that the special appeal was rejected because it did not address a federal issue or challenge an arbitrary sentence, so none of Mr. Mohamed’s rights was violated. 68. The IACHR will now analyze the scope of the right to appeal the judgment to a higher judge or court, recognized in Article 8.2.h of the Convention, specifically as regards review of a conviction handed down at the second instance. Based on this analysis, it will decide whether in this case the special appeal satisfied the requirements established in Article 8.2.h. 69. The right to appeal a judgment to a different and higher judge or court is a basic guarantee of due process, to prevent consolidation of a situation of injustice. According to interAmerican jurisprudence, the aim of this right is “to protect the right of defense by creating a remedy to prevent a flawed ruling, containing errors unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests, from becoming final.”44 Due process of law would lack efficacy without the right of defense at trial and the opportunity to defend oneself against a sentence by means of a proper review.45 70. In the instant case, the analysis includes Mr. Mohamed’s right to review of his conviction at the second instance, after being acquitted at the first instance. The IACHR notes that Article 8.2.h. makes no explicit distinction between procedural stages for exercising the right to appeal the judgment in the case of a conviction. 71. It should be noted that the preparatory work for this article reflects the specific intent to include the right to appeal a second-instance sentence. The preliminary draft of the American Convention on Human Rights prepared by the IACHR46 established in Article 7(i) “the right to appeal a first-instance judgment to a higher court.” On a motion from the delegate of Ecuador, who suggested deleting the reference to first instance, it was decided to change that provision and give it the current language of Article 8.2.h. According to the acts of the Specialized Conference, one delegate said “some countries have two instances, but perhaps others may have as many as three.” 47 72. The right to appeal a second-instance judgment has also been recognized by the UN Human Rights Committee: Article 14, paragraph 5 is violated not only if the decision by the court of first instance is 44 I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. 045 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 252. 146 Preliminary draft presented by the Inter-American Commission, transmitted to the Council of the Organization of American States on July 18, 1968. 247 OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2. Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, Acts and Documents, General Secretariat, Organization of American States, Washington DC. San José, Costa Rica, November 7-22, 1969, p. 202.