B. Preliminary objection of the “fourth instance” and complementarity of the inter-American system B.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 28. The State argued that it was not appropriate for the Court to reassess the domestic court’s decision imposing a sanction on Mr. Urrutia on May 6, 2005. It also stressed that, on March 29, 2018, the plenum of the Supreme Court, in compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report, had decided to annul the decision issuing disciplinary sanction against Daniel Urrutia which had given rise to this litigation. In addition, the State indicated that, since 2005, no judge of the Republic had again been sanctioned based on article 323.4 of the Organic Code of the Courts (hereinafter also “the OCC”). In this regard, it indicated that the normative consequence of the complementary nature of the inter-American system was that, “if the State itself has rectified a situation of supposed violation of rights, it is not for this [Court] to exercise its jurisdiction to ‘approve’ or ‘confirm’ the decision that has been adopted at the domestic level.” 29. The Commission noted that “the purpose of the case […] relates to violations of due process, freedom of expression, judicial protection and legality; therefore, the Court is unable to respond to the State’s arguments without analyzing the merits of the matter. This means that the State’s assertion does not constitute a preliminary objection and should be declared inadmissible.” It also indicated that the “fourth instance” objection was not admissible in this case. 30. The representatives argued that “the State’s contention before the Court was absurd: failing to accept responsibility for a human rights violation because ‘supposedly’ it had ceased to commit it.” They indicated that “it is implausible that the annulment of the disciplinary sanction against Judge Urrutia also terminates the other human rights violations committed over all these years during which Chile failed to provide an effective response.” B.2 Considerations of the Court 31. In this case, it is alleged that the American Convention has been violated owing to the actions of the Judiciary. Determining whether the actions of the judicial organs have constituted a violation of the State’s international obligations may result in the Court having to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.14 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 manifestly arbitrary.15 32. Consequently, the Court considers that the determination of whether the alleged facts can be classified as a violation of freedom of expression, judicial guarantees, judicial protection and the principle of legality falls within its jurisdiction to establish whether a violation of the American Convention has occurred. 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 Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 33. 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 Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para. 31. 15 8