III JURISDICTION 13. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention because Peru has been a State Party to said instrument since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 14. The State filed five preliminary objections related to: a) review of the legality of the procedure followed by the Commission; b) the inability of the Commission to act as a fourth instance; c) failure to exhaust domestic remedies; d) the undue inclusion of facts that are not part of the factual framework of the case and e) the undue inclusion in the pleadings and motions brief of rights allegedly violated. Given the similarity of the arguments, the Court will analyze the first two objections jointly. With regard to points d) and e), the Court notes that, due to their nature, they do not qualify as preliminary objections, for which reason they will be analyzed in the next chapter entitled “Preliminary Considerations”. A. Review of the legality of the procedure followed by the Commission and fourth instance objection A.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 15. The State requested that the Court review the legality of the Commission’s actions, considering that this body had “exceeded its functions” by assuming competencies that would pertain exclusively to the domestic courts, as it allegedly carried out “an examination and assessment of the evidence, which is not in keeping with its functions,” thereby acting “as an appellate court.” The State alleged that the Commission had reexamined the evidence presented in the administrative and judicial proceedings conducted by the domestic authorities “in the manner of a higher court, which reviews the actions of a lower court.” 16. The Commission, for its part, argued that the State had not demonstrated that the Commission had committed errors, and even less those of a serious nature that would warrant a review of legality by the Court. It also pointed out that it had not acted as a fourth instance, but rather had ascertained whether the actions of the domestic authorities respected the rights protected by the American Convention and that, to this end, it had applied the evidentiary standard required in the inter-American human rights system and developed by the Court since the case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. It added that, by examining the compatibility of the domestic proceedings, the Commission could determine whether the burden of proof imposed in the context of a case was compatible with the American Convention. It therefore considered that its actions were consistent with the case law of the Inter-American Court and requested 8