17. In its answering brief, the State argued that both the ordinary and higher courts of the domestic jurisdiction acted and ruled on the facts of the case in accordance with national legislation, the Constitution and the American Convention. It considered that the alleged victims are seeking to use the inter-American system as a fourth instance to admit claims which, under the principles, guarantees and rights enshrined in the Convention, have already been settled in the domestic courts. Thus, it argued that “the Inter-American Court does not have jurisdiction over the matter, since the present case does not comply with the subsidiarity requirement of the inter-American human rights system.” In its final written arguments, the State added that the Court is not competent to review “decisions issued by the domestic courts, merely because the petitioners consider that the outcome of the collective process is not favorable to their interests.” 18. The representative argued that the discussion as to whether or not the State of Guatemala had violated the conventional rights of the Judiciary workers should take place in an oral and public trial, not through a motion for preliminary objections. He did not present specific arguments on this preliminary objection. 19. The Commission argued that the instant case does not involve mere disagreements with the content of the jurisdictional rulings at the domestic level, but rather a series of violations of due process. In particular, the Commission found that the alleged victims were not afforded an administrative proceeding prior to the sanction of dismissal, which limited their right of defense. Likewise, the Commission, in its Merits Report, considered that the State violated the rights to strike, to work and to have access to an effective remedy with respect to the 65 former workers who were not rehired. Thus, it concluded that at no time was there any intention that the Court act as a fourth instance; rather a series of violations of rights guaranteed by the Convention were alleged. A.2. Considerations of the Court 20. This Court has stated that the determination as to whether the actions of judicial bodies constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations may require it to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. Consequently, this Court is not a fourth instance of judicial review, since it examines the conformity of domestic judicial decisions with the American Convention and not in accordance with domestic law. 10 21. In the instant case, the Court notes that the claims of the Commission, taken up by the representative of the alleged victims, are not limited to the review of the rulings of the national courts for possible errors in the assessment of evidence, in the determination of the facts or in the application of domestic law. On the contrary, the violation of various rights enshrined in the American Convention is alleged in the decisions taken by the national authorities, both in the judicial and administrative courts. Consequently, in order to determine whether said violations actually occurred, it is essential to analyze, on the one hand, the decisions issued by the different administrative and jurisdictional authorities, and on the other, their compatibility with the State’s international obligations, which, in the end, is a substantive issue that cannot be resolved by means of a preliminary objection. Consequently, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection presented by the State. 10 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 Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 42. 7