24. In light of the above, the Court concludes that neither the request for monitoring of legality nor the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies is admissible. B. Alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to act as a fourth instance. B.1. Arguments of the State, observations of the Commission and the presumed victim 25. The State argued that the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights cannot subrogate the work of the domestic courts of each State, nor act as a court of appeal when re-evaluating the jurisdictional decisions adopted within the framework of a process that respects international standards. In this regard, it considered that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, as it arises from the presumed victim's disagreement with the internal decisions emanating from a judicial process of protection that was respectful of her rights to procedural guarantees. The State highlighted that it presented this preliminary objection before the Commission at the admissibility stage. 26. The presumed victim indicated that the State, in the first brief presented before the InterAmerican Commission, made no observations nor presented preliminary objections. She also argued that she resorted to the Inter-American System in relation to an act that violated rights contained in the American Convention and not because she seeks to review a decision that was unfavorable to her. 27. The Commission argued that, in this case, the presumed victim argued a series of violations of due process and other substantive rights, that occurred within the framework of the disciplinary administrative process of ratification that culminated in her dismissal from the post of Judicial Clerk. To that extent, the Commission held that, according to the precedents in the matter, the preliminary objection filed by the State is inadmissible. B.2 Considerations of the Court 28. This Court has indicated that the finding as to whether the actions of judicial bodies constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations, may then require it to examine the respective domestic processes to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. Therefore, when analyzing the compatibility of the domestic proceedings with the American Convention, the Court is only competent to decide on the content of judicial decisions that clearly arbitrarily contravene it.9 Consequently, this Court is not a fourth instance of judicial review, insofar as it examines the compliance of domestic judicial decisions with the American Convention and not in accordance with domestic law. 29. In this specific case, it is noted that the Commission and the presumed victim allege the violation of different rights enshrined in the American Convention, within the framework of the decisions taken by the national authorities, both in administrative and judicial proceedings. Consequently, in order to determine whether said violations actually occurred, it is essential to analyze, on the one hand, the resolutions issued by the different administrative and jurisdictional authorities, and on the other, their compatibility with the international obligations of the State, which ultimately sets up a substantive issue that cannot be settled by way of a preliminary 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 Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 18. 9 8