36. The Commission claimed that this objection is appropriate when there is a claim that the Court has reviewed a decision of a domestic court in which the latter incorrectly weighed the evidence, the facts or the domestic law and there is no allegation that such a decision resulted in a violation of the international treaties over which the Court has jurisdiction. However, this case involves establishing whether the domestic procedures were compatible with the Convention and, therefore, the Commission requested that the Court reject the State’s argument. 37. The representatives stated that this is an issue related to the merits of the controversy in that it refers to an alleged failure to comply with the international obligations regarding the rights to judicial protection and to judicial guarantees, the violation of which has been claimed. They pointed out that the alleged victims did not seek reconsideration of what was decided by the national judges and by the amparo courts. C.2 Considerations of the Court 38. The Court has stated that the determination of whether the acts of judicial organs are a violation of a State’s international obligations can lead to an examination of the respective domestic procedures to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.21 Therefore, the Court is not a fourth instance of judicial review in that it examines the conformity of such judicial decisions with the Convention and not their accord with domestic law.22 39. Here the Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives have presented allegations of violations of rights set out in the American Convention perpetrated by the State and specifically related to domestic procedures. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to analyze the decisions of the different jurisdictional authorities to determine their compatibility with the State’s international obligations. The preliminary objection is, thus, ruled inadmissible. D. Alleged inadmissibility of the complaint for the lack of an object D.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 40. The State requested that the Court exclude certain former employees who were repaired domestically and, thus, the alleged violations have been indemnified. It reported that, with respect to 141 persons, it had reviewed the dismissals and had recognized their irregularity and that it has carried out specific actions for the revindication of their rights. The State emphasized that 121 persons have been repaired and that the reparations of 20 additional persons is imminent. In addition, it asked that the Court require that the alleged victims or their representatives provide information on payments of financial incentives for voluntary retirements and of social benefits received upon dismissal. 41. The Commission repeated the arguments found in its Merits Report in the sense that the effect of the access of some of the alleged victims to the procedures of reinstatement, retraining, indemnification or some other form of reparation for their irregular dismissals is 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 Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 32. 21 22 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155 and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 32. 12