organs constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations may result in the Court having to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.28 However, the Court has established that it does not have competence to rule on domestic judicial decisions if it has not been verified that they have violated due process and if they are not manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. Thus, although this Court is not a fourth instance of judicial review and does not examine the assessment of the evidence made by the domestic judges, it does have competence, exceptionally, to decide on the content of judicial decisions that contravene the American Convention in an arbitrary manner.29 32. The Court considers that the determination of whether the alleged facts can be classified as torture does not represent a review of the decisions of the domestic courts. To the contrary, this determination falls within the competence of the organs of the interAmerican system when establishing whether there has been a violation of the American Convention and, if appropriate, of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 33. Accordingly, the Court declares the preliminary objection filed by the State inadmissible. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 34. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives and the State, as well as those requested by the Court or its President as helpful evidence and, as in other cases, it admits them in the understanding that they were presented at the proper procedural opportunity (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure)30 and their admissibility was neither contested nor challenged. 35. The Commission indicated that annexes 1,31 332 and 433 provided by the State with its final written arguments “refer to information that was available when the State presented its answering brief and were not requested by the Court.” The representatives indicated 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 Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 33. 28 Cf. Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and Merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No 383, para. 82, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 33. 29 In general and pursuant to 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, documentary evidence may be presented with the briefs submitting the case or with pleadings and motions or in the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence provided outside these procedural opportunities is not admissible, unless this is pursuant to the exceptions established in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure or grave impediment) or if it relates to a supervening fact, in other words one that has occurred following the said procedural occasions. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 42. 30 Annex 1 corresponds to the document entitled “Report on six (6) training courses on human rights for the Peruvian National Police, offered between May 2015 and September 2018.” 31 Annex 3 corresponds to the document entitled “Administrative Decision No. 090-2016-CE-PJ, of April 7, 2016, adopting the “National Plan for Access to Justice by Persons in a Vulnerable Situation - Judiciary of Peru 2016-2021.” 32 Annex 4 corresponds to the document entitled “Administrative Decision No. 087-2019-CE-PJ, of February 20, 2019, adopting “The incorporation of a gender approach into the management tools of the Judiciary.” 33 11