19. The Commission indicated that, in the instant case, a series of violations of due process and the principle of legality were alleged in the proceedings that culminated with the removal of the presumed victim from his post in the Prosecution Office; therefore, it was not a matter that referred merely to a disagreement with domestic decisions. It added that the debate on the reasons that led it to conclude that the said violations had been committed corresponded to the merits of the matter and this could never be decided by a preliminary objection. It asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection of fourth instance. A.2. Considerations of the Court 20. The Court has indicated that the determination of whether the actions of judicial organs constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations may result in the Court having to examine the respective internal proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.9 However, this Court is not a fourth instance to conduct a judicial review or to examine the assessment of the evidence made by the domestic judges. It is only competent to decide on the content of judicial decisions that contravene the American Convention in a way that is plainly arbitrary.10 21. In this specific case, the Court notes that the claims of the Commission and the presumed victim are not confined to the 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, they argue that various rights established in the American Convention were violated in the context of the decisions taken by the domestic authorities, in both the administrative and the judicial sphere. Consequently, in order to determine whether the said violations truly occurred, it is essential to analyze the decisions issued by the different administrative and jurisdictional authorities in order to determine their compatibility with the State’s international obligations and, ultimately, this relates to a substantive issue that cannot be settled by means of a preliminary objection. Consequently, the Court declares the preliminary objection presented by the State inadmissible. B. The Court’s lack of jurisdiction to examine arguments concerning the right to work B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 22. The State argued that a violation of the right to work was mentioned several times in the pleadings and motions brief, although this had not been considered in either the Admissibility Report or the Merits Report. It indicated that Article 19(6) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, known as the “Protocol of San Salvador,” delimited the competence of the Commission and of the Court in the sense that the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights could only examine trade union rights (Article 8(a)) and the right to education (Article 13). It argued that the Court could not assume competence with regard to the presumed violation of a right or freedom that was not included under the protection system of the Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador. It added that the Court should “reconsider and reflect on the criteria previously established in the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru,” as regards the interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention. 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 Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, para. 31. 9 Cf. Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 383, para. 82, and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, para. 31. 10 7