12 the Inter-American Commission or the United Nations and its agencies, or documents of local or international organizations and public institutions that can be found by the Court and the other parties on the Internet or by other means, the Court reserves the authority to incorporate them into the case file, if it considers them useful to decide a specific case, unless one of the parties contests them. This is a power of the Court, but not an obligation, because it is the parties who should provide the Court with all the documents they wish to contribute as evidence. Since the parties have been granted the possibility of contesting this type of document in the instant case, and the Court has had access to them and has considered them pertinent, they are accepted and incorporated into the file.45 * * * 35. Having examined the probative elements in the file of the instant case, together with the statements made by the parties, as well as the elements indicated in the chapter on Prior Considerations (supra paras. 16-21), the Court will now examine the alleged violations in this case, based on the facts that have already been acknowledged and those that will be proved,46 included in the corresponding chapters. VI INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE 36. Bearing in mind the context in which the facts of this case occurred (supra paras. 5 to 10), as well as some of the declarations made by the State, before examining the alleged violations of specific provisions of the American Convention, the Court finds it pertinent to include this chapter to offer some clarifications regarding the structure and scope of the State’s international responsibility under the Convention, which is what the Court will establish in this case in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction. 37. First, the Court considers it fundamental to reiterate, as it has when deciding other cases, that it is not a criminal court in which the criminal responsibility of an individual can be examined.47 This is applicable in the instant case, which does not relate to Mr. Neptune’s innocence or guilt concerning the facts of which he is accused in the criminal proceedings in Haiti, but rather to whether the actions taken in the proceedings against him are consistent with the American Convention. The organs of the inter-American human rights system do not function as a court of appeal or review of the decisions or judgments issued in domestic proceedings, because its function is to determine the compatibility of such proceedings with 45 Cf. Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26. 46 Hereafter, this judgment contains facts that the Court considers proved based on the State’s silence, with the pertinent clarifications regarding the facts presented in the application. Some of these facts have been completed with other probative elements, in which case the respective footnotes are included. 47 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 34, para. 134, and Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37. See also, Boyce et al. v. Barbados. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169, footnote 37, and Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 93.