stage, Mr. Grijalva Bueno presented a series of arguments that demonstrate his questioning of the assessment of the evidence by the domestic judicial authorities.10 17. The State argued that a review of the military criminal proceedings shows that, during the trial, Mr. Grijalva Bueno presented testimonial and documentary evidence, contradicted testimonies and other contrary evidence, and exercised the legal remedies provided by law. However, it considered that in the domestic proceedings he did not directly question the evidentiary ineffectiveness of the contents of the Naval Intelligence Service Report and “cannot now expect an international body to conduct an evidentiary assessment or determine the relevance of certain facts in the substantiation of the judgment within the domestic legal system, a task that is reserved for the domestic judge.” It also argued that the alleged victim has disputed the judges’ assessment of the application of domestic law in relation to the determination of the criminal offense, as well as the ruling of the Military Court of Justice that rejected the appeal, all of these issues relating to the assessment of evidence in the proceedings and the interpretation of domestic law by the judges who heard the case. 18. The State concluded that it is not up to the Court to assess the facts and evidence presented in each particular case owing to the alleged victim’s disagreement with the judicial rulings that were not favorable to him, and that the Court should not constitute itself as a higher jurisdiction than the domestic courts, which generates the Court’s lack of jurisdiction. 19. The representative argued that the fourth instance objection would not be applicable in this case, since the alleged victim is merely asking the Court to determine whether the military criminal proceedings as a whole, including the incorporation of evidence, complied with the Convention, since he considered that “there were several serious violations of the human rights contained in the Convention.” He emphasized that the “initial flaws in the disciplinary process affected the entire military criminal proceeding, including the judgment.” Consequently, he requested that the Court reject the State’s preliminary objection and proceed to examine the merits of the case. 20. The Commission argued that the conventionality of all proceedings conducted at the domestic level, as State acts, can be analyzed by the organs of the interAmerican system, an analysis that corresponds to substantive matters. Consequently, the Commission asked the Court to declare the inadmissibility of the State’s argument, which is not of a preliminary nature. B. Considerations of the Court 21. With respect to the preliminary objection of fourth instance presented by the State, the Court finds that it is not incompatible with the partial acknowledgment of 10 For example, in his brief of June 2008, submitted to the Commission, Mr. Grijalva Bueno stated that: “[n]o previous evidence that clearly refuted the falsehoods concocted against Vicente Grijalva Bueno was taken into account. On the other hand, illegal evidence was collected at the appropriate procedural moments from influential actors. We attach official letter N° COGMAR-CDQ-005-R dated May 14, 1996, from the General Commander of the Navy […] this “report” was used by the judges of Captain Vicente Grijalva Bueno. […] As will be observed, the judge did not bother to provide any reasoning on the factual and legal aspects of the case. Nor did he justify the relevance of the evidence or rule on its pertinence, that is, on the existence of the facts and the participation of the defendants. Therefore, he did not provide grounds or justify his judgment. Instead, he validated all the unfair and illegal actions carried out during the disciplinary process and the military criminal proceedings […] making assumptions arising from previous processes […]”. Cf. Communication from Mr. Grijalva Bueno to the Commission in June 2008 (evidence file, folios 509 to 545). 6