Therefore, in accordance with the Court’s established precedent, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. C. Lack of ratione materiae jurisdiction over the violation of the principle of subsidiarity (fourth instance objection) C.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 29. The State argued that the Court's analysis of the facts and conclusions reached in criminal trial No. 028.1986.2.00004-9 and compensatory action No. 007348.91.2007.814.0028 contravenes the principle of subsidiarity of the inter-American system. The State argued that—through proper domestic authorities and appropriate, legitimate investigative remedies—it has applied criminal procedural law and constitutional and legal safeguards. 30. The Commission emphasized that the Merits Report was focused on determining whether domestic processes had violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection of the alleged victims, not on reviewing the decisions of the national authorities. 31. The representatives declared that because the State’s arguments challenge the representatives’ allegations, they concern the merits of the case and should thus be analyzed. C.2. Considerations of the Court 32. This Court has noted that in its effort to determine whether the actions of legal bodies constitute a violation of a State’s international obligations, it may need to examine the respective domestic proceedings in order to assess their compatibility with the American Convention. 21 Accordingly, this Court is not a fourth instance appeals court, as it examines whether domestic legal decisions are compatible with the American Convention, not whether they are in agreement with domestic law. 22 33. The Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives have alleged that the State committed violations of rights enshrined in the American Convention—rights directly connected to domestic proceedings. Accordingly, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 34. In its answering brief, the State argued it was impossible for the Court to hear the alleged violation of the right to the truth to the detriment of the family of Gabriel Sales Pimenta and Brazilian society as a whole because this is beyond the scope of analysis set by the Commission in its Merits Report. 35. The Court reiterates that the alleged victims and their representatives can invoke the violation of rights not contained in the Merits Report as long as they fall within the factual framework established by the Commission, as the alleged victims are the ones who hold all the rights enshrined in the American Convention. In these cases, it is the Court's responsibility to decide on the 21 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 Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 38. 22 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 222, para. 32, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 38. 10