instance.” It is the Court that must decide whether, in the case in question, the State has violated a right protected by the Convention, thus incurring international responsibility. Therefore, the Court is not a higher court or a court of appeal to decide the disagreements of the parties on specific implications of the application of domestic law to aspects that are not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations.5 17. The Court has stated that preliminary objections seek to prevent an examination of the merits of an aspect in question, by objecting to the admissibility of a case or to the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of its aspects, based on the person, the matter, the time, or the place, provided that these objections are of a preliminary nature.6 If these objections cannot be examined without previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed by means of a preliminary objection.7 18. The Court has also indicated that, for the fourth instance objection to be admissible, it would be necessary that the applicant seeks that the Court examine the decision of a domestic court “owing to its incorrect assessment of the evidence, the facts, or the domestic law, without, at the same time, arguing that the said decision violated international treaties over which the Court has jurisdiction.”8 The foregoing, within the framework of the Court’s reiterated case law, which has noted that the determination of whether or not the actions of judicial organs constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations may mean that the Court must examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.9 19. This Court considers that the preliminary objection is inadmissible; nevertheless, since the arguments presented by the State are related to due process, they will be analyzed in Chapter VI on the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. IV COMPETENCE 20. The Court has competence to hear this case, in keeping with Article 62(3) of the American Convention, since Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since also, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 31; The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para 61, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra nota 5, para. 114. 5 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 18, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 38. 6 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 39. 7 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 41. 8 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 221, para. 18, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 40. 9 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 the Barrio Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 181. 7