-919. Consequently, the Court holds that the issue raised by the State is not a preliminary objection and that, because it is related to the merits of the case, the Court will analyze the arguments of law presented by the representatives in the relevant chapters of this Judgment. V. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 20. With respect to the preliminary objection of a “fourth instance,” the State argued that, if the Court evaluated certain allegations of the representatives pertaining to domestic judicial proceedings8 relating to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the Court would be acting as a tribunal of fourth instance because that would mean that the Court would be deciding on the facts and on the law of Peru, which would exceed its jurisdiction. The State added that the Court can not substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts since, as a general rule, it is for the Peruvian courts to evaluate and interpret the laws of Peru; otherwise, the Court would be intervening as a “fourth instance.” The State also alleged that the Court “cannot become a higher court to examine presumed errors of fact that might have been committed by the national courts, as long as they were acting within the limits of their competence.”9 21. The representatives stated that they are not asking that the Court act as a higher court, but rather that the organs of the inter-American system review domestic judicial actions to determine their compatibility with the Convention. In addition, the representatives indicated that the acts referred to by the State are related to the substance of the case and, thus, they requested that the Court reject the preliminary objection. The Commission added that the allegations of the representatives mentioned by the State refer to components of the judicial response of Peru in light of the inter-American standards in the area of the duty to investigate and to punish human rights violations promptly and with due diligence and, thus, an analysis of those allegations does not pretend to be a review of a final decision of criminal proceedings, but rather a determination of the compatibility of that judicial response with the aforementioned standards, regarding which the Court will make an in-depth anaysis. 22. This Court has held that in order that a “fourth instance” objection be applicable, the Court must be asked “to review the decision of a domestic court, based on its incorrect assessment of the evidence, the facts or domestic law, without, in turn, alleging that such decision was in violation of international treaties over which the Court has jurisdiction.”10 In addition, the Court has held that evaluating compliance with certain international obligations can lead to an intrinsic interrelationship between the analysis of international law and of domestic law.11 Therefore, the determination whether the actions of a domestic judicial body constitute a violation of a State’s international obligations can lead to a situation where the The State referred to the same allegations of the representatives, summarized in paragraph 15 of this Judgment, with the exception of the allegation regarding the use of force but including the allegation that the payment of compensation ordered at the domestic level for moral redress to the next of kin of the dead alleged victims was only for the loss of their dear ones, without taking into consideration the alleged sufferings caused by the search for justice by the next of kin. 8 The State maintained that the totality of its acts and omissions that were claimed as infringements of the American Convention, including those of a procedural nature, had already been evaluated and judged by the independent and impartial national courts by means of effective remedies with respect to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. 9 Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 18 and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 247, para. 18. 10 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 16 and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 140. 11