20 final, but also where a conviction imposed by an appeal court or a court of final instance, following acquittal by a lower court, according to domestic law, cannot be reviewed by a higher court. Where the highest court of a country acts as first and only instance, the absence of any right to review by a higher tribunal is not offset by the fact of being tried by the supreme tribunal of the State party concerned; rather, such a system is incompatible with the Covenant, unless the State party concerned has made a reservation to this effect.48 73. The guarantee established in Article 8.2.h in this case is not limited to a single procedural stage, but requires that a higher court review a conviction regardless of the instance at which it was rendered, whether it is a sentence issued in first, second or sole instance. 74. Based on the foregoing analysis, the IACHR considers that Article 8.2.h. recognizes Mr. Mohamed’s right to appeal the judgment of the Chamber of Appeals that convicted him of negligent homicide. The IACHR will now proceed to analyze whether the special appeal filed by Mr. Mohamed satisfied the requirements of Article 8.2.h. 75. For international human rights law the label or name given to this remedy is irrelevant.49 What matters is that it meet specific standards. Firstly, it must be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata50 and it must be resolved within a reasonable period, i.e., it must be timely. It must also be an effective remedy, i.e., it must provide results or responses to the end that they were intended to serve,51 which is to prevent consolidation of an unjust situation. It must also be accessible, without requiring the kind of complex formalities that would render this right illusory.52 76. The Commission must underscore the point that the efficacy of a remedy is closely linked to the scope of the review. This is so because judicial authorities are fallible and can make mistakes that result in injustice. Judicial error is not confined to the application of the law, but may happen in other aspects of the process such as the determination of the facts or the weighing of evidence. Hence, the remedy of appeal will be effective in accomplishing the purpose for which it was conceived if it makes possible a review of such issues without a priori limiting that review to certain aspects of the court proceedings. 77. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission said in the Abella case: Article 8.2.h refers to the minimum characteristics of a remedy that serves as a check to ensure a proper ruling in both substantive and formal terms. From the formal standpoint the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court to which the American Convention refers should, in the first place, apply […] with the purpose of examining the unlawful application, the lack of application, or the erroneous interpretation of rules of law based on the operative part of the judgment. The Commission also considers that to guarantee the full right of 348 United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 32 (2007). Article 14. Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, para.47. 49 Inter-American Court, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 165; UN Human Rights Committee. Communication No. 701/1996, Gómez Vázquez c. España, Resolution of August 11, 2000., para. 11.1. 050 I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 158. In the same sense, see ICCPR Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1100/202, Bandajevsky v. Belarús, Resolution of April 18, 2006, para. 11.13. 51 I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 161. 052 I/A Court H. R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 164.