that three testimonial statements and two expert opinions be submitted by affidavit, and to require the statement of the presumed victim by a videoconference,8 which took place on October 8, 2020, during the Court’s 137th regular session. 10. Final written arguments and observations. On December 7, 2020, the representatives and the State forwarded their final written arguments with attached documentation, and the Commission presented its final written observations. On the instructions of the President of the Court, the presumed victim’s representatives and the Inter-American Commission were asked to send any considerations they deemed pertinent on the documentation forwarded by the State. On December 16, 2020, the representatives forwarded their comments in this regard and the Commission indicated that it had no comments to make. 11. Helpful evidence and information. On January 12 and 28, 2021, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the State was asked to present helpful documentation. 9 The State presented the documents on January 25 and February 3, 2021. The representatives’ observations were submitted on January 28 and February 9, and those of the Commission on January 29 and February 9, 2021 (infra para. 23). 12. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated this judgment in a virtual session on February 15 and 16, 2021.10 III JURISDICTION 13. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention because Peru ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on July 12, 1978, and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 14. In this case, Peru presented a preliminary objection on the Inter-American Court’s lack of jurisdiction to assume a role of fourth instance, and this will be addressed below. A. Alleged lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Inter-American Court to review domestic decisions (“fourth instance” objection) A.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and of the representatives 15. The State indicated that it had filed this preliminary objection at the admissibility stage and (e) the Procedural Rules for Disciplinary Proceedings of the National Council of the Judiciary of August 17, 1995. The presumed victim’s statement was ordered as helpful evidence following a request by his representatives. The request was based on Mr. Cordero Bernal’s right to be heard and because, since he had represented himself during the initial processing of this case before the Court, his statement had not been requested because “it was evident that he could attend the corresponding hearing.” Cf. Helpful evidence procedure – petition (merits file, folios 419 to 423). 8 The State was asked to send information on the actual status of the post occupied by Hector Fidel Cordero Bernal at the time of his dismissal and on the salary earned by specialized judges in Peru during the period from 1995 to 2005. 9 Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and adopted during the 139th regular session, which was held virtually with the use of technology in keeping with the provisions of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 10 5