truly been an unwarranted delay in the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the State authorities when the Admissibility Report was issued in 2008 (infra para. 121). 20. Regarding the fourth instance argument presented by the State, in other cases this Court has indicated that it takes its decisions based on international law and, in particular, based on the Convention, and that the international jurisdiction is of a complementary and reinforcing nature. Consequently, it does not perform the functions of a court of “fourth instance,” or of a higher or appellate court, to resolve any discrepancies that the parties may have with any effects of the assessment of the evidence or the application of domestic law on aspects that are not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations. Moreover, for this argument to be admissible, the applicant would need to require the Court to review the ruling of a domestic law based on its incorrect assessment of the evidence, the facts or domestic law without, also, arguing that this ruling violated international treaties for which the Court has jurisdiction.13 21. However, this Court has established that when assessing compliance with certain international obligations there may be an intrinsic connection between the analysis of international law and domestic law. Therefore, determination of whether or not the actions of judicial organs constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations may require the Court to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.14 The Court has also established that it does not have jurisdiction to rule on domestic judicial decisions that have not been proved to have violated due process or to be manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. Nevertheless, although the Court is not a fourth instance for judicial review and does not examine the assessment of the evidence made by the domestic judges, it does have jurisdiction, exceptionally, to decide on the content of judicial decisions that clearly and arbitrarily violate the American Convention.15 22. In the instant case, the Court notes that the Commission and the representatives have asked the Court to review the decisions of the domestic courts because they relate to the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention respectively. Therefore, to determine whether such violations occurred, this Court will analyze the domestic investigations and judicial proceedings and will verify whether due diligence was observed in the investigation.16 V. EVIDENCE 23. The Court admits those document presented by the parties and the Commission at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure), whose admissibility was not contested or opposed and whose authenticity was not questioned.17 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220, para. 18, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 30. 13 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222, Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, paras. 55 and 56, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 30. 14 Cf. Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 383, para. 82, and Case of Romero Feris v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2019, para. 114. 15 16 Cf. Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 31. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Rico v. Argentina, para. 21. 17 -8-