10 as a court of “fourth instance.” This implies that the Court cannot act as a higher court or as an appeal court to resolve in disagreements among parties on some scopes of the assessment of evidence or of the application of the domestic law to some aspects that are not directly related to compliance with the international obligations in human rights. Thus, this Court has sustained that, in principle, “courts of the State are expected to examine the facts and evidence submitted in particular cases.”26 The above implies that when assessing compliance with certain international obligations, such as ensuring that a detention was lawful, there is an intrinsic interrelationship between the analysis of international law and domestic law. 17. The Court has sustained that preliminary objections are acts that seek to prevent the examination of the merits of the aspect in question, by objecting the admissibility of an application or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects, owing to the person, the matter, the time or the place, as long as said aspects are of a preliminary nature.27 If these acts cannot be revised withouth previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed through a preliminary objection.28 18. Based on the foregoing, it may be sustained that, if the idea is for the Court to act as a higher court regarding the scope of the evidence and the domestic law, a matter would be submitted to it on which it could not rule and for which it is not competent, in light of the subsidiary competence of an international tribunal. However, for this exception to be applicable, it would be necessary that the applicant must intend for the Court to review the decision of the domestic tribunal due to its incorrect assessment of the evidence, the facts or the domestic law without, in turn, alleging that such decision was a violation of international treaties over which the Tribunal is competent. 19. On the contrary, the Court is competent to check whether in the steps effectively taken at domestic level, the State violated or not its international obligations deriving from the Inter-American instruments that confer competence to the Tribunal. Therefore, according to the usual case law of the Court, the clarification of whether the State has violated its international obligations can lead the Court to examine the corresponding domestic proceedings in order to establish its compatibility with the American Convention.29 This happens because, if there is Case of Zambrano Velez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C Nº. 166, para. 47, and Case of Perozo et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 64. 25 In the Preamble of the American Convention, the international protection is justified "in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” See also, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights. (Art. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982, Series A Nº.2, para. 31; The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986, Series A Nº 6, para. 26, and Case of Velasquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61. 26 Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C N° 161, para. 80. 27 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 17 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35. 28 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C N. 184, para. 39; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 27, para. 17 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 35. 29 Cf. Case of “Street Children" (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, Nº 63, para. 222; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 27, para. 120; and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 24.