89 violation when it hands down judgment, in the understanding that the Bolivian jurisdictional authority did not take a decision on I.V.’s rights; [rather] instead of this, it archived the criminal case on the grounds that the proceedings had gone beyond the temporal limit of three years that proceedings on a matter such as this should take.” Therefore, the representative argued that the Bolivian court had not taken a decision as it was supposed to do under Article 25(2)(a) because, on procedural grounds caused by the court itself, it granted impunity to those who had violated I.V.’s rights. 287. The State asserted that the arguments presented by the representative regarding the presumed violation of Article 25(2)(a) of the Convention, corresponded to “citations from reports and documents that were not pertinent and that did not provide appropriate grounds for violations of the said article or reveal, by specific acts, the presumed failure to comply with the obligation to decide on a right when a remedy is filed.” Accordingly, “the Court should not take this allegation into account.” Regarding the right to judicial protection, it argued that the laws of Bolivia guaranteed I.V. access to simple, effective and prompt remedies, specifically, cassation and the constitutional amparo, “which were neither filed nor exhausted.” Regarding the remedies used by I.V., the incidental appeal, the cassation procedure, and the appeal against the extinction, the State argued that they were processed in accordance with the established legal procedure, ensuring her right to due process, so that the State had not violated the guarantees and the right to judicial protection of I.V. B. Considerations of the Court 288. Before proceeding to analyze the merits in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the Court finds it pertinent to provide some clarifications in relation to the different arguments presented. First, the Court notes that the State changed its legal arguments, starting during the public hearing, in relation to its answering brief. In particular, the arguments described above concerning the inappropriateness of criminal proceedings in this case, the alleged failure of I.V. to become a complainant in the proceedings, and the fact that she did not denounce the domestic judges, were submitted for the first time in its final oral and written arguments before this Court. The Court recalls that the final arguments are essentially an opportunity to systematize the legal and factual arguments that have already been presented at the proper opportunity.362 In this case, the Court considers that these arguments, even though they were submitted in relation to the merits of the matters, refer to questions of admissibility and could be considered partially contradictory to the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies filed by the State. Hence, they will not be taken into account, because their presentation was time-barred. 289. In addition, regarding the State’s arguments concerning the fourth instance, the Court finds it pertinent to recall that the international jurisdiction does not exercise the functions of a court of “fourth instance,” nor is it a higher court or a court of appeal to resolve disagreements between the parties regarding aspects of assessment of the evidence or application of domestic law on matters that are not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations. 363 On this point, it is pertinent to recall that the Court has stated that, if the intention is for the Court to act as a higher court in relation to the scope of the evidence and of domestic law, this would involve submitting to the Court a matter regarding which it could not rule and does not have jurisdiction owing to the subsidiary competence of an international court. In this regard, the scope for the InterAmerican Court to review a ruling of a domestic court relates to whether that decision violated Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, paras. 19 and 22, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 34. 362 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 Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 173. 363