reject the complaint because the Petitioner is (a) seeking a fourth instance intervention; and (b) has failed to adduce facts that characterize any violation of the American Convention. 53. With respect to the State’s argument that review of this petition would require the Commission to act as a “fourth instance,” the Commission’s jurisprudence clearly establishes that the IACHR is not competent to review judgments handed down by national courts acting within the scope of their jurisdiction and observing due judicial guarantees. The Commission cannot serve as an appellate court to examine alleged errors of law or fact that may have been committed by the domestic courts acting within their jurisdiction. However, within its mandate to ensure the observance of the rights protected in the Convention, the Commission is necessarily competent to declare a petition admissible and rule on its merits when it is claimed that a domestic legal decision was taken in disregard of the right to a fair trial, or that there have been other violations of rights protected by the Convention.8 While questions relating to the application of domestic law may in principle be beyond the competence of the Commission, in the present case the Petitioner has alleged that the criminal proceedings against him (which culminated in the verdict of the Suriname High Court of Justice) violated numerous rights under the American Convention. The Petitioner’s claims relate, inter alia, to the right to due process (including access to appeal to a higher court), the right not to be prosecuted under ex post facto laws. The Commission considers that these claims are properly within its jurisdictional competence. 54. With respect to the present petition, the Commission considers that the arguments presented by both parties require an in-depth analysis of the substance of the matter in order to be resolved. The Commission therefore does not find that the petition is “manifestly groundless” or "obviously out of order”. On the other hand, the Commission considers that, prima facie, the petitioners have fulfilled the requirements set out in Article 47(a) and (b) of the American Convention. 55. In light of these considerations, the Commission considers that the Petitioner’s allegations could characterize violations of the American Convention, should they be shown to be accurate. V. CONCLUSION 56. The Commission concludes that it is competent to examine the allegations of the Petitioner and that the petition is admissible in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, with respect to the violations of Articles 8, 11, 9 and 22 as they relate to the freedom from ex post facto laws, the right to fair trial, the right to privacy and, the right to freedom of movement. The Commission deems the claims under Article 24 to be inadmissible. 57. Based on the factual and legal arguments set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, 8 See IACHR Report Nº 1/03, Case 12.221, Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, Argentina, February 20, 1003, para. 46, citing IACHR, Report Nº 39/96, Case 11.673. Marzioni, Argentina, October 15, 1996, paras. 50-51. 10