CCPR/C/GC/32 Page 14 VII. REVIEW BY A HIGHER TRIBUNAL 45. Article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant provides that anyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to have their conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. As the different language versions (crime, infraction, delito) show, the guarantee is not confined to the most serious offences. The expression “according to law” in this provision is not intended to leave the very existence of the right of review to the discretion of the States parties, since this right is recognised by the Covenant, and not merely by domestic law. The term according to law rather relates to the determination of the modalities by which the review by a higher tribunal is to be carried out,92 as well as which court is responsible for carrying out a review in accordance with the Covenant. Article 14, paragraph 5 does not require States parties to provide for several instances of appeal.93 However, the reference to domestic law in this provision is to be interpreted to mean that if domestic law provides for further instances of appeal, the convicted person must have effective access to each of them.94 46. Article 14, paragraph 5 does not apply to procedures determining rights and obligations in a suit at law95 or any other procedure not being part of a criminal appeal process, such as constitutional motions.96 47. Article 14, paragraph 5 is violated not only if the decision by the court of first instance is final, but also where a conviction imposed by an appeal court97 or a court of final instance,98 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.99 48. The right to have one’s conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal established under article 14, paragraph 5, imposes on the State party a duty to review substantively, both on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence and of the law, the conviction and sentence, such that the procedure allows for due consideration of the nature of the case.100 A review that is limited to the formal or legal aspects of the conviction without any consideration whatsoever of the facts is not sufficient under the Covenant.101 However, article 14, paragraph 5 Communications No. 1095/2002, Gomaríz Valera v. Spain, para. 7.1; No. 64/1979, Salgar de Montejo v. Colombia, para.10.4. 93 Communication No. 1089/2002, Rouse v. Philippines, para. 7.6. 94 Communication No. 230/1987, Henry v. Jamaica, para. 8.4. 95 Communication No. 450/1991, I.P. v. Finland, para. 6.2. 96 Communication No. 352/1989, Douglas, Gentles, Kerr v. Jamaica, para. 11.2. 97 Communication No. 1095/2002, Gomariz Valera v. Spain, para. 7.1. 98 Communication No. 1073/2002, Terrón v Spain, para. 7.4. 99 Idem. 100 Communications No. 1100/2002, Bandajevsky v. Belarus, para. 10.13; No. 985/2001, Aliboeva v. Tajikistan, para. 6.5; No. 973/2001, Khalilova v. Tajikistan, para. 7.5; No. 623-627/1995, Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia, para.18.11; No. 964/2001, Saidova v. Tajikistan, para. 6.5; No. 802/1998, Rogerson v. Australia, para. 7.5; No. 662/1995, Lumley v. Jamaica, para. 7.3. 101 Communication No. 701/1996, Gómez Vázquez v. Spain, para. 11.1. 92