that this preliminary objection be dismissed. 17. The representatives recalled that the Court has “clearly” established in its constant case law that it is authorized to examine the actions of the domestic courts if the purpose is to determine the compatibility of domestic jurisdictional proceedings with the American Convention. Accordingly, the examination of the conformity of domestic proceedings with the inter-American framework is a matter pertaining to the merits of the dispute. A.2 Considerations of the Court 18. First, the Court recalls that the Inter-American Commission has independence and autonomy to exercise its functions in accordance with the American Convention, especially as regards the procedure for analyzing individual petitions established in paragraphs 44 to 51 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court has established in its case law that it may review the legality of the Commission’s actions when one of the parties alleges the existence of a serious error that could impair its defense. 20 In this case, the Court notes that the State did not present any arguments or evidence to prove this point. 19. Secondly, the Court has held that the organs of the inter-American human rights system do not act as a fourth instance of judicial review and, therefore, cannot examine the assessment of evidence carried out by national judges to determine whether such evaluations were compatible with domestic law. However, when the alleged violations of the State’s international obligations are linked to the actions of jurisdictional bodies, this may lead it to examine the respective domestic proceedings, in order to establish whether or not they are compatible with the American Convention. 21 In this regard, the State affirms that the Inter-American Commission exercised the functions of a fourth instance. The Court notes that the purpose of this case is not to examine and assess the evidence produced at the domestic level, but rather to determine whether there was a violation of various rights enshrined in the American Convention in the context of the decisions adopted by the national authorities, both in the administrative and judicial proceedings, as the Inter-American Commission did. Therefore, in order to establish whether said violations actually occurred, it is essential to analyze the decisions issued by the different administrative and jurisdictional authorities, in order to determine their compatibility with the State’s international obligations. Consequently, this preliminary objection is dismissed. Cf. Control of Due Process in the Exercise of the Powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, first and third operative paragraphs; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 32 and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 23, 2022. Series C. No. 451, para. 16. 21 Cf. 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 Digna Ochoa and Family v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 38. 20 9