39. Mr. Cuya Lavy’s representatives stated that the fact that the state act in violation of the American Convention is an internal judicial process does not prevent the organs of the InterAmerican Human Rights System from examining it under the States’ obligations pursuant to the Convention. It is therefore scrutiny in respect to the convention and not internal legal scrutiny. 40. Mr. Valenzuela Cerna’s representatives stated that “the Court has not been required to settle the legal issue of the irregular process and the non-ratification of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, nor does it analyze the unfavorable result obtained before the Constitutional Court”. They concluded that in the case of Mr. Valenzuela Cerna there is debate as to whether the domestic law decisions violated his rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, judicial protection and political rights, for which they considered that the argument of the “fourth instance” is inadmissible and must be rejected. 41. The Commission concluded that the alleged victims argue a series of violations of due process, the principle of legality, and other substantive rights, which is why it is not a mere disagreement with the internal proceedings. To that extent, the Commission emphasized that, according to the Court’s precedents, the preliminary objection filed by the State is inadmissible. B.2. Considerations of the Court 42. This Court has indicated that the decision as to whether the actions of judicial bodies constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations may lead to it having to examine the respective domestic processes, to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. Consequently, this Court is not a fourth instance of judicial review, insofar as it examines the compliance of domestic judicial decisions with the American Convention and not in accordance with domestic law. 26 43. The Court notes that in this case there are an alleged series of violations of due process, the principle of legality, as well as other substantive rights related to the domestic proceedings against the alleged victims, which are not related to the disagreement with the outcome of the process. The questions raised must be examined on the merits of the matter and it will be up to this Court to determine whether the international obligations established in the American Convention were respected in the domestic proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismisses the State’s preliminary objection. C. Exception regarding the alleged improper inclusion of Article 26 of the Convention in the case of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse C.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 44. The State alleged the improper inclusion of Article 26 of the Convention in the brief of motions and pleadings of Messrs. Valenzuela Cerna, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Marta Rodríguez Ricse, since it was included under the alleged erroneous idea that this case has affected the right to work, which is without further factual support or any other basis. Regarding Article 26, Peru stated that according to Article 19(6) of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR) “Protocol of San Salvador”, it cannot be analyzed, questioning the justiciability of said right. It concluded 26 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. 13