8(2)(h) of the Convention in regard to one specific point that is relevant to resolve this case (infra section D.1). The Court recalls that the conviction for the offense of manslaughter was imposed on Mr. Mohamed for the first time in second instance, in the judgment of the First Chamber of the National Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters, which overturned the acquittal issued by Correctional Court No. 3, Secretariat No. 60. (supra paras. 48 and 49). 88. After ruling on the content of said right established in the Convention (infra section D.2), the Court will consider whether the special federal appeal and the subsequent remedies of a motion for review and for revocation filed by Mr. Mohamed met the conventional requirements (infra section D.3) and will settle the dispute as to whether there was a violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal effects established in Article 2 of the Convention (infra section D.4). D.1.) Scope of Article 8(2)(h)of the Convention with respect to criminal convictions issued upon resolving an appeal against acquittal 89. On several occasions, this Court has referred to the standards that must be observed to ensure that the right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court is guaranteed, in accordance with Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention.82 In this case, Argentina has not disregarded or contradicted those precedents, but it has alleged as a main point that Mr. Mohamed could have had access to the aforementioned right if he had made proper use of the legal remedies available, and did not do so.83 90. However, at the same time, Argentina presented another argument related to the scope of the right to appeal the judgment. The State held that comparative international law provides exceptions to the right to appeal criminal convictions, whereupon it referred to paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Protocol 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which stipulates the exception in respect of a person who has been convicted after an appeal against his acquittal. The State indicated that Mr. Mohamed falls under that category, since he was convicted for the first time in a second instance proceeding, “and therefore there was no violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention.” On this aspect of the right to appeal the judgment, both the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 65 and 67) understand that this guarantee favors the accused and that, regardless of whether the conviction was imposed in a first or second instance, the right to a review of that decision must be guaranteed through a remedy that meets the standards defined by the Court in its jurisprudence. 91. The Court points out that this case has the peculiarity that the defendant was subject to a criminal proceeding in two instances, and was convicted in the second instance which overturned the acquittal issued by the court of first instance. To determine whether Mr. Mohamed had the right to appeal before a higher judge or court, the Court must decide whether the protection enshrined in Article 8(2)(h) of the 82 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 161; Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, paras. 157 to 168, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 88 a 91. 83 The State argued that when Mr. Mohamed filed the extraordinary appeal and the motion for review, he did not allege a violation of the right to appeal the judgment, which, according to the principle of subsidiarity, the Court cannot rule on issues that have not been heard at the domestic level (supra para. 68). The Court points out that this allegation was made by Argentina in its answer brief, within its considerations on the merits regarding "[t] he alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.” Given that the State did not raise this argument as a Preliminary Objection, the Court has not reviewed this in a preliminary manner, but rather it will consider the arguments raised upon ruling on the State’s alleged international responsibility for failing to guarantee the right protected by Article 8(2)( h) of the Convention. 28