20. The Court confirmed that during the admissibility process before the Commission,14 the State submitted seven briefs.15 Only in the brief of November 13, 1998, received by the Commission on November 16, 1998, it specified that the order that concluded the military disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio “was not challenged in administrative proceedings, meaning it was accepted by said government official” without clearly referring to the objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. In addition, in its brief the State did not refer to the effectiveness of that remedy; therefore, it did not comply with the burden of proof in that regard. Based on the foregoing, the Court dismisses the objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. B. Objection of fourth instance B.1. Arguments of the State and observations by the Commission and the representative 21. The State filed the objection of fourth instance, indicating that it is not within the jurisdiction of the inter-American system to review “jurisdictional or similar decisions issued domestically[,] or to question the criteria and/or appraisal of the judicial entities in those cases (in process or completed), in regular proceedings that respect the guarantees of due process contemplated in the Political Constitution of Peru and in the [Convention].” 22. The Commission claimed that the objection filed by the State is based on the incorrect assumption that there were no violations to the American Convention in the proceedings against the alleged victim, which is in fact an analysis that corresponds to the merits stage. 23. The representative did not make any specific arguments in this regard. B.2. Considerations of the Court 24. The Court has indicated that when assessing compliance with certain international obligations, there can be an intrinsic interrelationship between the analysis of international law and domestic law. Therefore, in order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings to determine their compatibility with the American Convention 16 and the inter-American instruments that grant it jurisdiction. 25. In the instant case, neither the Commission nor the representative have requested the review of domestic decisions with regard to the assessment of the evidence, of the facts, or the application of domestic law. The goal of the merits stage is to analyze, pursuant to the American Convention and international law, whether there were human rights violations, specifically to the procedural guarantees and personal liberty of the alleged victim in domestic judicial and disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the Court rejects the exception of fourth instance filed by the State. C. Observations regarding the inclusion of Article 25 of the American Convention in the Commission’s Report on the Merits The admissibility process concluded with the issuing of Admissibility Report No. 13/03 of February 20, 2003, by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (supra para. 2.b). 15 Cf. State’s briefs of August 12, 1998 (evidence file, folios 659 and 660), November 16, 1998 (evidence file, folios 632 to 639), of January 29, 1999 (evidence file, folios 491 to 494), of February 26, 1999 (evidence file, folios 487 and 488), of May 25, 1999 (evidence file, folios 427 to 434), of January 3, 2000 (evidence file, folios 410 to 412) and January 2, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1151 to 1154). 16 Cf. Case of the "Street Children" (Villagran-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits; para. 222 and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 30. 14 8