E. Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae to review domestic decisions on possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention (fourth instance objection) E.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and of the representatives 72. The State indicated that the purpose of the inter-American human rights system is not to review the merits of the conclusions reached by the domestic authorities in the legitimate exercise of their competences. Therefore, assuming the role of the domestic authorities and acting as if they were a court of appeal falls outside the competence ratione materiae of the Commission and of the Court. 73. It reiterated that the proceedings opened in 2008 were not an appropriate domestic remedy to calculate the reasonable time for lodging the petition before the Commission. It added that, even if it was accepted that the said remedy had been appropriate and, therefore, the petition had been lodged within a reasonable time, observance of res judicata and the application of statutory limitations to the criminal action – both protected by the Convention – prevented an examination of the merits of the matter. 74. The State recalled that the judicial ruling adopted in 1992 preceded the developments in the Inter-American Court’s case law with regard to the non-applicability of statutory limitation to criminal actions in similar cases, and argued that requiring a judicial reinterpretation of past rulings based on jurisprudential theses that did not exist at the time would undermine the scope of judicial guarantees. 75. Lastly, the State argued that, during the judicial investigation that concluded in 1992, in addition to hearing testimony and also the statements of the presumed victims, several procedures were conducted and numerous pieces of evidence were collected. Therefore, even though no criminal conviction resulted, there was no lack of diligence and the investigation was not suspended without evidentiary measures being taken. Moreover, pecuniary reparation was awarded in accordance with the Court’s case law in the case of Gomes Lund et al. 76. The Commission noted that the State’s argument did not constitute a preliminary objection, because it did not refer to matters of competence or to the admissibility requirements established in the Convention. Therefore, the matter could not be decided as a preliminary objection, and this was the same situation in the case of the amount of the reparations, as they were both matters of substance. 77. The Commission argued that, in this case, the Court was called on to examine, among other matters, whether the domestic proceedings undertaken for the facts of the case constituted an appropriate and effective means to achieve judicial protection taking into account the rights that had been violated. Also, the method of reparation and the eventual need for the Court to establish supplementary reparations went beyond a preliminary objection and was also a matter of substance. 78. Consequently, the Commission asked the Court to establish that the State’s position concerning the lack of competence to review domestic decisions did not constitute a preliminary objection and, therefore, was inadmissible. 79. The representatives characterized the State’s position as a fourth instance objection. In this regard, they argued that, for this to be the case, it would have been necessary that the Court had been asked to review an internal decision of the State owing to an incorrect assessment of the evidence, the facts or domestic law. They argued that, in this case, the 17