Court was not being asked to exercise such functions over internal decisions issued by the State’s judicial organs. To the contrary, in this case, they were asking the Court to declare the international responsibility of the Brazilian State for errors and obstructions by different State agents that violated the obligation to guarantee the rights to physical integrity, freedom of expression, access to justice, and judicial guarantees recognized in the American Convention. E.2. Considerations of the Court 80. First, the Court recalls that, regardless of whether the State defines an assertion as a “preliminary objection,” if the Court must begin to consider the merits of the case when analyzing it, it is no longer preliminary in nature and cannot be analyzed as such. 35 81. The Court also reiterates that the international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary and complementary nature 36 and, therefore, it does not perform the functions of a court of “fourth instance.” Moreover, it is not a high court or court of appeal to decide any disagreements between the parties on elements concerning the evaluation of the evidence or the application of domestic law in relation to aspects that do not directly concern compliance with international human rights obligations. 37 82. The Court finds that the State’s arguments could be considered a fourth instance objection; however, for this objection to be admissible, “the applicant must require the Court to review the ruling of a domestic court owing to an incorrect evaluation of the evidence, the facts or domestic law, without, at the same time, alleging that the said ruling violated international treaties for which the Court has competence.” 38 The Court has also considered that, when assessing compliance with certain international obligations, there may be an intrinsic interrelationship between the analysis of international law and domestic law. Consequently, determination of whether the actions of the State’s judicial organs constitute a violation of its international obligations may result in the Court having to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. 39 83. In this case, neither the Commission nor the representatives have requested a review of domestic decisions in relation to the evaluation of evidence or facts or the application of domestic law. The Court considers that the analysis, pursuant to the American Convention and international law, of the arguments of the parties with regard to whether the domestic judicial proceedings were appropriate and effective and whether the appeals were processed and decided correctly is a matter to be examined at the merits stage. In addition, at that stage, it will be necessary to analyze whether the payment made to repair the pecuniary 35 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 the Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil, para. 72. The Preamble to the American Convention states that the international protection should be considered as “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” See 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, para. 26; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61, and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015, para. 17. 36 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 16, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 56 37 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 18, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 22. 38 39 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 222, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, para. 56. 18