before the Inter-American Commission. It also underscored that the Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on discrepancies between the parties on the assessment of the evidence or the application of domestic law unless this concerned matters relating to compliance with the State’s international human rights obligations. It asked the Court to “assess the amparo proceedings in order to verify that it was held with full respect for the guarantees of due process, providing Mr. Cordero Bernal with the opportunity to appeal the judicial decisions against him and thereby obtain a ruling from the highest constitutional court in Peru; namely, the Constitutional Court.” 16. The Commission recalled that, in this case, a series of violations of due process and the principle of legality had been alleged in the proceedings that culminated in the presumed victim’s dismissal from office. In other words, the case did not refer to disagreements with domestic decisions. It also considered that the analysis of the reasons that led to the determination of the violations indicated in its Merits Report corresponded to the merits of the matter and could never be decided by a preliminary objection. 17. The representatives asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection filed by the State outright because it was without merit. In this regard, they indicated that the InterAmerican Court had the authority to oversee whether the decisions of the domestic administration of justice were in keeping with the duties and obligations described in the American Convention. A.2. Considerations of the Court 18. The Court has indicated that determination of whether the actions of judicial bodies constitute a violation of a State’s international obligations may lead to the Court having to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. However, this Court is not a fourth instance for judicial review, and does not examine the assessment of the evidence made by the domestic judges. Consequently, when analyzing the compatibility of the domestic proceedings with the American Convention, the Court only has competence to decide on the content of judicial decisions that contravene the Convention in a way that is clearly arbitrary.11 19. In this specific case, the Court notes that the intention of the Commission and the presumed victim is not limited to a review of the rulings of the domestic courts owing to a possible error in the assessment of the evidence, the determination of the facts or the application of domestic law. To the contrary, it is alleged that various rights recognized in the American Convention have been violated in the context of the decisions taken by the domestic authorities, in both the administrative and the judicial jurisdictions. Accordingly, in order to determine whether the said violations truly occurred, it is essential to examine the decisions issued by the different administrative and judicial authorities to determine their compatibility with the State’s international obligations, which, ultimately, constitutes a matter relating to the merits that cannot be decided by a preliminary objection. Consequently, the Court declares the preliminary objection presented by the State inadmissible. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, para. 20. 11 6