14. The representative considered that the State had revealed “a total lack of knowledge of the inter-American human rights system” and indicated that he had “never [referred to the InterAmerican Court] as a court of fourth instance or a higher court.” He argued that the State “was trying to dispute a court and jurisdiction that it had fully recognized,” because it had undertaken to respect the obligations and effects derived from the inter-American human rights system. 15. The Commission recalled the case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, in which the Inter-American Court had established that the Court had competence to examine domestic proceedings to verify their compatibility with the American Convention. It added that “the conventionality of all domestic proceedings, inasmuch as they are acts of the State, can be analyzed by the organs of the inter-American system, an analysis that corresponds to the merits of the matter.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 16. This Court has indicated that, to determine whether the actions of judicial organs constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. Consequently, this Court is not a fourth instance for judicial review because it examines the conformity of domestic judicial decisions with the American Convention rather than with domestic law.11 17. In this specific case, the Court notes that the objective of the Commission is not merely that the Court review the decisions of the domestic courts, but also that it determine whether the police criminal proceedings against the presumed victims and their deprivation of liberty were in keeping with the American Convention. Therefore, to decide whether the alleged violations really occurred, the Court must examine the decisions issued by the different jurisdictional authorities in order to determine their compatibility with the State’s international obligations. Ultimately, this constitutes a substantive issue that cannot be resolved by a preliminary objection. Consequently, the Court finds that the preliminary objection filed by the State is inadmissible. B. Alleged violation of the State’s right of defense owing to the failure to control the legality of the Commission’s actions B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 18. The State indicated that more than 15 years had passed between the start of the procedure before the Commission and the adoption of the Merits Report. It argued that the disproportionate duration of the procedure prejudiced the State’s exercise of its defense because the passage of time had made it difficult to obtain evidence and to prepare the State’s defense strategy. In addition, it argued that it had been forced to amend the objections to admissibility initially proposed because a change in the factual framework had rendered the substantiation of the proposed objection insufficient. At the start of the procedure, the State had argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted because the criminal proceedings against the presumed victims were being processed. The State argued that the issue of the Admissibility Report had rendered its defense more complicated. It indicated that the petition had been lodged on July 15, 2003, and two years later, on July 29, 2005, the Commission advised the State and required it to present observations on the petition’s admissibility. Nine years after presenting this request, the Commission adopted the Admissibility Report on January 29, 2015, and, more than 15 years after the petition had been 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 Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 22. 11 6