Appeals on February 22, 1995, inasmuch as this ruling convicted him of the offense of manslaughter (supra para. 48). D.2) Content of the right to appeal the conviction 97. The Court will refer to the content of the guarantee afforded by Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention and, in the next section, it will determine whether that right to appeal was guaranteed to Mr. Mohamed. The Court’s considerations in this regard will be based on the view of the protection that said Conventional norm guarantees to a person convicted of a criminal offense. 98. The Court has indicated that the right to appeal the judgment is an essential guarantee that must be respected in the context of legal due process, in order to allow an adverse ruling to be reviewed by a different judge or court of higher rank.88 The right to appeal, expressed through access to a remedy that offers the possibility of a comprehensive review of a conviction, confirms the grounds and affords greater credibility to the State’s judicial actions, and at the same time provides greater security and protection to the rights of the convicted person.89 Furthermore, the Court has stated that the important point is that the remedy should guarantee the possibility of a comprehensive review of the appealed decision.90 99. The right to challenge the ruling seeks to protect the right of defense, to the extent that it offers the possibility of bringing an action to prevent a decision adopted in a flawed process and one that contains errors from becoming final, which would be unduly prejudicial to a person’s interests.91 100. The Court has held that Article 8(2)(h)of the Convention refers to an ordinary accessible and effective remedy92. This means that it should be guaranteed before the judgment becomes res judicata.93 The efficacy of the remedy implies that it must seek to provide results or answers for the purpose for which it was conceived.94 Similarly, the remedy must be accessible, that is, it should not involve great complexities that render this right illusory.95 Accordingly, the Court considers that the formalities required for the appeal to be admitted should be minimal and should not constitute an obstacle to the remedy fulfilling its purpose of examining and resolving grievances argued by the appellant. 101. It should be understood that, regardless of the regimen or system of appeals adopted by States Parties and of the name given to a means for challenging the 88 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 158. 89 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 89. 90 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 165, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 89. 91 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 158, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 88. 92 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, paras. 161, 164, 165 and 167, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, paras. 88, 89 and 90. 93 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 158, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 88. 94 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 161, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 90. 95 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 164, and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 90. 30