“one of the requirements for the application of this norm is the existence of a ‘final’ acquittal judgment and, in the instant case, even though the legal grounds [or] appeal that gave rise to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice is unclear, this is not the same as a unequivocal conclusion that the acquittal of June 18, 1993, would have become final.” It also indicated that it “has no information” that “the alleged time-barred nature of the decision […] can result in a judgment becoming final.” 254. The representative argued that the nullity decision of the “faceless” Supreme Court “does not affect the res judicata nature of the decision that acquitted J.,” because: (i) “it annulled illegally the judgment of June 18, 1993, that acquitted J., since it was not based on any of the presumptions specifically described in Peruvian law for nullity” and because “it was time-barred”; (ii) “in addition, it was ultra vires because it was issued by an organ that, under international law, was illegal,” and (iii) “[t]he expression “non-appealable judgment’ in paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the American Convention […] should not be interpreted restrictively; in other words, limited to the meaning attributed to it in the domestic law of the States.” According to the representative, “[i]f legal significance [is granted] to this nullity, it would re-open a case that is defunct.” The representative also argued that “it should be considered that, in the United Kingdom, [the said decision of nullity] was referred to as an “act of persecution” in the terms of the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,” and also that a Higher Regional Court of Cologne, Germany, denied the extradition of J. considering “that a new trial would violate the principle of non bis in idem”. 255. The State indicated that “it has been proved that the acquittal judgment of June 18, 1993, delivered by the Higher Court of Justice of Lima was never final, because the judgment of December 27, 1993, handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice declared that it was null and void and ordered that a new oral hearing be held.” It added that “Legislative Decree No. 926 declared null and void those trials that had been held before secret judges and prosecutors as did the National Counter-terrorism Chamber on May 20, 2003, [and t]he Constitutional Court has indicated that there was no arbitrariness in those cases in which the initiation and implementation of a criminal trial was carried out as a result of the initial proceedings having been declared null and void.” It concluded that this case “does not refer to two different trials, but to a single proceeding, which has been annulled up until the stage at which new charges were filed by the prosecutor, in keeping with the rules of the judicial guarantees established in the American Convention.” ii. Considerations of the Court 256. This Court has established that clarification of whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the actions of its judicial organs may mean that the Court must examine the respective domestic proceedings, 372 in order to establish whether they are compatible with the American Convention. 373 257. In addition, the Court considers it pertinent to recall that, in cases such as this, in which the actions taken in criminal proceeding are questioned, the organs of the inter-American system of human rights does not function as a court of appeal or of review of judgments handed own in domestic proceedings, 374 nor does it act as a criminal court in which the criminal responsibility of individuals can be analyzed. Its function is to determine the compatibility of the actions taken in the said proceedings with the American Convention 375 and, in particular, to examine the acts and 372 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 Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 247, para. 18. 373 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 146, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 18. 374 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 62, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, supra, para. 190. 375 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 83 and 90, and Case of 76