Commission and also that the Court is able to declare the violation of rights that have not been alleged by the parties under the iura novit curia principle. 30. They added that they were not asking the Court to review the rulings to find an incorrect assessment of the evidence, the established facts, or the application of domestic law; rather, they were alleging precise violations of the victim’s rights, such as the right to information on consular assistance (Articles 7(4) and 8(2) of the American Convention); the right to be heard by an impartial judge (Article 8(1) of the American Convention), and the right to appeal a ruling before a higher court (Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention). In summary, they considered that this preliminary objection was based on the argument that no human rights had been violated in this case, when this was precisely the issue that would be debated at the merits stage of the case. Therefore, they considered that the State’s position could not be the subject of a preliminary objection. B.2. Considerations of the Court 31. In its consistent case law, the Court has indicated that, to determine whether the actions of judicial organs constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations, it may be necessary to review the domestic proceedings merely to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.10 Thus, this Court does not act as a fourth instance for judicial review, because its review is limited to examining the conformity of domestic judicial decisions with the American Convention, rather than with domestic law.11 32. In the instant case, the Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives have alleged violations of rights established in the American Convention supposedly perpetrated by the State, specifically related to domestic proceedings. To decide whether the alleged violations really occurred, it is essential to examine the actions of the government authorities and the rulings made by the different jurisdictional authorities to verify their compatibility with the State’s international obligations. This is a matter that relates to the merits of the case and cannot be decided by means of a preliminary objection; therefore, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. C. Preliminary objection concerning the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies C.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 33. The State argued that, regarding the facts associated with the violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, use was not made of the special review mechanisms by which a person who has received a final judgment may obtain a review of the judicial ruling. It indicated that the remedy of cassation was available to the petitioner and, subsequently, the procedures for the review of judgment. Also that, between 2006 and 2012, he would have been able to file the remedies established in Law 8503, “Opening of Criminal Cassation,” and Law 8837, “Creation of the remedy of appeal against a judgment, other reforms to the appeals system, and implementation of new rules on 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 Baraona Bray v. Chile, supra, para. 31. 10 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 222, and Case of Baraona Bray v. Chile, supra, para. 31. 11 8