12. Observations on the annexes to the final arguments. On October 30, 2020, the State presented its observations on the annexes to the final written arguments of the representative. And, on November 2, 2020, the representative presented her observations on the annexes to the State’s final written arguments. On the same date, the Commission indicated that it had no comments to make in this regard. 13. The Court deliberated this judgment virtually on November 23 and 24, 2020.7 III JURISDICTION 14. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention because the Republic of Peru has been a State Party to this instrument since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 15. In the instant case, the State filed two preliminary objections on the following issues: (a) the preliminary objection of “fourth instance,” and (b) the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to examine arguments concerning the right to work. A. Preliminary objection of “fourth instance” A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 16. The State argued that the inter-American system for the protection of human rights contributes, and is subsidiary and complementary, to the internal jurisdiction of the States so that, as the Court has indicated on previous occasions, it lacks jurisdiction to act as a higher court to rule on disagreements regarding the assessment of evidence, because the examination of the facts and the evidence corresponds to the domestic courts. It argued that it had filed the preliminary objection of fourth instance twice during the admissibility stage before the Commission. 17. The State indicated that the matter debated in the instant case had “clearly been settled” at the domestic level by a judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 14, 2005 (sic).8 However, since the presumed victim did not agree with the assessments and rulings made by the domestic jurisdictional organs, he was seeking for the Court to act as a fourth instance; that is, to intervene and to rule on the dispute. Lastly, the State argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case since the presumed victim had resorted to the inter-American system because he disagreed with the decisions taken internally. 18. The representative argued that the matter submitted to the Court’s consideration did not concern the assessment of the evidence or internal differences or disputes. To the contrary, it related to the State’s violation of human rights protected by both domestic and supranational law. Owing to the exceptional circumstances resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and adopted during the 138th regular session, which was held virtually using technological means as established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 7 The judgment of the Constitutional Court was issued on November 14, 2005. Cf. Judgment handed down by the First Chamber of the Constitutional Court on November 14, 2005 (evidence file, volume I, annex 9 to the Merits Report, folios 32 and 33). 8 6