observations in this regard. 15. Disbursements in application of the Victims’ Assistance Fund. On August 17, 2021, the Secretariat, following instructions from the President of the Court, forwarded information to the State on the disbursements made in application of the Victims' Legal Assistance Fund in this case and, pursuant to Article 5 of the Court’s Rules for the Operation of the aforementioned Fund, granted it a period to present any observations it deemed pertinent. On August 27, 2021, the State presented its observations. 16. Deliberation of this case. The Court began the deliberation of this Judgment on September 27, 2021. 14 III JURISDICTION 17. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given that Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 21, January 1981. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 18. In this section, the Court will analyze the arguments aimed at examining the jurisdiction of this Court on the grounds of: (a) the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies by the alleged victims and the need for a review of legality by the Inter-American Court; (b) the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Court to act as a “fourth instance”, and (c) 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. Additionally, the State presented as preliminary objections the alleged improper inclusion in the brief of motions and pleadings of allegations on the alleged impact on rights not included in Admissibility Report No. 19/15, regarding Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse and the alleged improper inclusion of facts and allegations proposed by the representatives of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. Regarding the latter two, as in other cases, the Court considers that the State's arguments do not constitute a preliminary objection, as it does not state the reasons the case submitted would be inadmissible or that the Court would be incompetent to hear it, therefore, it will analyze these allegations as preliminary considerations. 15 The representative of Mr. Díaz and Ms. Rodríguez did not present observations on the preliminary objections. A. Exception regarding the alleged failure to comply with the exhaustion of domestic remedies and request for review of legality A.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 19. The State maintained that the decisions of the CNM are open to legal review if their content undermines the fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution, with the suitable appeal process in the case of due substantiation and its possible connection with the principle of legality, being the Writ of Amparo as held by the Constitutional Court, through Resolution of November 7, Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and approved during the 144th regular session, which was held virtually via technological means in accordance with the provisions of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 15 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 387, para. 18, and Case of Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio De Jesus and their Families v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 16. 14 8