8. Final written arguments and observations of the parties and the Commission. On March 24, 2021, the State and the representative presented their final written arguments. On March 25, 2021, the Commission presented its final written observations. 9. Presentation of helpful evidence. On June 15, 2021, the State and the representative were asked to submit helpful evidence under Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure by June 25, 2021. On June 25, 2021, the State presented the documentation and information requested. On June 30, 2021, owing to technical problems with the representative’s email when sending this documentation and its annexes, the requested evidence and information were submitted belatedly. Subsequently, on July 2, 2021, the representative forwarded another group of documents related to the helpful evidence. On July 14 and 27, 2021, the State presented its corresponding observations in which it asked the Court to consider the documentation presented by the representative inadmissible owing to its late presentation. On July 14 and 30, 2021, the Commission advised that it had no comments to make. Lastly, the representative did not present observations on the helpful evidence forwarded by the State. 10. Deliberation of the case. The Court deliberated this judgment on August 23 and 24, 2021.10 III. JURISDICTION 11. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention because Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 12. The State presented two preliminary objections: (a) alleged “[l]ack of jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court rationae materiae and the use of the [inter-American human rights system] as a fourth instance in relation to the criminal proceedings instituted against Messrs. Villarroel Merino, Cevallos Moreno, Coloma Ga[i]bor, Ascázubi Albán, López Ortiz and others,” and (b) “[c]ontrol of legality of the action of the [Commission] owing to violation of the State’s right of defense.” The Court will now examine the preliminary objections filed by the State and the corresponding arguments of the representative and the Commission. A. The Court’s alleged lack of competence to act as a fourth instance A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 13. The State argued that Messrs. Villarroel Merino, Cevallos Moreno, Coloma Gaibor, Ascázubi Albán, López Ortiz and Vinueza Pánchez were trying to use, first, the Inter-American Commission and, now, the Court as a fourth instance in relation to the criminal proceedings for the offense of misappropriation of funds. The State claimed that it was not incumbent on the Court to examine judicial decisions issued in the context of criminal proceedings that had already been decided by the National Police Court of Justice (hereinafter also “NPCJ”), or to examine supposed legal or factual errors that could have been committed by the domestic courts. It argued that the presumed victims were seeking for the Court to annul the decisions of the domestic court, which would mean that it was acting as a higher court. Owing to the exceptional circumstances resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and adopted during the 143rd regular session held using technological means, pursuant to the Court’s Rules of Procedure. See Press release No. 39/2020, of May 25, 2020, available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_39_2020.pdf 10 5