responsibility made by the State, since said acknowledgement refers to the administrative process of dismissal of Mr. Aníbal Vicente Grijalva Bueno, and not to the military criminal proceedings. 22. This Court has pointed out that the determination of whether the actions of judicial bodies violate the State’s international obligations may lead it to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.11 Therefore, when analyzing the compatibility of domestic proceedings with the American Convention, the Court is only competent to decide on the content of judicial decisions that contravene it in a manifestly arbitrary manner.12 Consequently, this Court is not a fourth instance of judicial review, inasmuch as it examines the conformity of domestic judicial decisions with the American Convention, and not with domestic law. 23. In the instant case, the Commission’s claims are not limited to the review of the judgments of domestic courts for possible errors in the assessment of the evidence, in the determination of the facts or in the application of domestic law. On the contrary, it alleges the violation of various rights enshrined in the American Convention, in the context of the decisions made by the national authorities in judicial proceedings. Consequently, in order to determine whether such violations actually occurred, it is essential to analyze the decisions of the different jurisdictional authorities, in order to determine their compatibility with the State’s international obligations, which, in the end, constitutes a substantive issue that cannot be resolved by means of a preliminary objection. Therefore, the Court considers that the preliminary objection presented by the State is not admissible. V ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Partial acknowledgment of responsibility by the State and observations of the representative and the Commission 24. In its answering brief, the State indicated its “partial acknowledgement of the facts and claims related to the disciplinary administrative process” and presented the following considerations: - [The State] accepts that in the reports used to dismiss Mr. Grijalva Bueno from the ranks of the Armed Forces, a military agent who had been denounced by the victim months earlier for having committed serious human rights violations was involved. [It] also accepts that other authorities who were denounced by Mr. Grijalva Bueno for the alleged commission of human rights violations and who formed part of the Council of Senior Officers that ordered his dismissal, had a direct interest in the outcome of the investigation, since they were involved in a dispute with the [alleged] victim. Therefore, the participation of these officers violated Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s right to be heard by an impartial authority during the dismissal process. - Accepts that Mr. Grijalva Bueno did not have an opportunity to know, participate and defend himself in the disciplinary procedure that concluded with his dismissal. Mr. 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 Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, para. 31. 12 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 222, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 18. 11 7