Convention, by assessing the evidence of the domestic criminal proceedings and referring to what the relevant procedural aspect for the judgment would be under domestic law. It had also made an analysis where it set forth considerations on the existence of masterminds and accessories to the crime, which the State considered was a task reserved to a domestic judge. The State concluded that the foregoing placed it in a state of defenselessness and, therefore, asked the Court to exercise the powers it has to control legality, as noted in Advisory Opinion OC-19. The State also argued that, in the instant case, “it can be said that the claim found [in the pleadings and motions brief] and in the Admissibility and Merits Report [is circumscribed] to the Inter-American Court […] assuming a function of court of appeal and review, which exceeds its mandate under the American Convention.” In this regard, the State indicated that the failure to punish all the accused does not mean that the proceedings can be analyzed by an international court. 14. For their part, in their brief of December 2, 2011, at the public hearing, and in their final arguments, the representatives indicated that the purpose of this case is for the Court to make a joint assessment of the judicial activity to verify whether or not the actions of the administrators of justice were compatible with the American Convention, and this does not constitute the fourth instance formula. They considered that this does not represent a simple disagreement with the results and content of a final judgment adopted by the domestic courts, as contended by the State, but rather they are denouncing serious shortcomings in the judicial investigation, which constituted the State’s violation of its obligation to conduct an adequate investigation within a reasonable time, aimed at discovering the truth, identifying all those responsible, prosecuting them and imposing an appropriate punishment so that such acts are not repeated. They concluded that these considerations cannot be resolved as a preliminary matter, but rather in the analysis of the merits of the case, as regards the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. They therefore asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection. 15. In its brief of December 6, 2011, at the public hearing, and in its final observations, the Commission considered that, in the instant case, the Court is not asked to act as a higher court with regard to the domestic judgments, but to rule on whether or not the State violated the American Convention in the exercise of its judicial and investigative powers in relation to the facts of the case. The Commission added that the State’s arguments do not have the nature of a preliminary objection: First because, as State agents, the investigative authorities and the judges can involve the responsibility of the State. Second, because the State’s argument is based on the premise that the actions of its authorities were in keeping with the American Convention, a matter that corresponds to the merits of the matter. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection filed by the State as inadmissible. Considerations of the Court 16. This Court has established that the international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary, 3 reinforcing and complementary nature; 4 therefore it does not act as a court of “fourth 3 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 114. 4 The Preamble to the American Convention establishes that the international protection is “in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” See 6