6 this case before the Court, not to review issues of domestic law, but rather to determine the State’s responsibility for failing to comply with its obligations under the Convention.” 21. The representatives argued that the State “invalidated its own claim” when it acknowledged that judgments delivered by the domestic courts could be reviewed if it was considered that “there may have been a violation of the Convention.” 22. The Court reiterates that clarification of whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the actions of its judicial bodies may lead to a situation in which the Court must examine the respective domestic proceedings in order to establish their compatibility with the Inter-American Convention. In light of this, the domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole, including the decisions of the courts of appeal. The role of international courts is to determine whether the entire proceedings, including the incorporation of evidence, are in keeping with the Convention.12 23. In the instant case, the Commission’s application does not attempt to review the rulings or decisions of the domestic courts, but asks the Court to declare that the State violated the principles of the Inter-American Convention during the detention and trial of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo. Consequently, the Court considers that this is not a preliminary objection, but rather a matter related to the merits of the case. IV COMPETENCE 24. The Court is competent to hear this case in the terms of Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the Inter-American Convention, because Ecuador has been a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. V PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 25. During the public hearing held in this case (supra para. 8), the representative of the State made a partial acquiescence, as follows: The Ecuadorean State regrets the excesses committed by public officials who intervened in the detention and trial of the alleged victims, Juan Carlos Chaparro Alvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo, and, over and above my role as the State’s Agent, I would personally like to express my regret for the unpleasant situation that the alleged victims experienced during the domestic proceedings against them for the alleged crime of drug-trafficking, of which they were ultimately acquitted. […] The State acknowledges the violations of the rights protected by Articles 2, 5, 8 and 25 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights. 26. During this public hearing, the Commission and the representatives assessed the State’s acquiescence. 27. According to Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure, in exercise of its inherent power concerning the international protection of human rights, the Court may 12 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 11, 1997. Series C No. 32, para. 222; Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 109, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 133.