8 11. On October 11, 2010 the Inter-American Commission, the representatives23 and the State forwarded their final written arguments, which were transmitted to the parties to present the observations they deem pertinent regarding certain documentation presented by Mexico and by the representatives together with such briefs. In said final arguments, the parties presented arguments and evidence related to the questions and evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the Court. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTION OF THE “FOURTH INSTANCE RULE” 1. Arguments of the parties 12. The State lodged a preliminary objection stating the Court’s “lack of competence to hear the merits of this claim in the light of the principle of the fourth instance.” The State sustained that “the Court cannot determine whether the national tribunals applied the domestic law correctly or whether the decision was wrong or unfair” and that the Court “should only determine” whether the judicial criminal proceedings “abided by the principles of guarantee and judicial protection under the American Convention or whether there is any judicial error that may be or has been proven evidencing serious injustice.” The State asserted that the latter would not have happened in this case since Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel filed “a motion challenging their formal imprisonment, a motion whereby they obtained partially favorable results,” and that “they also had access to instances at which they could appeal the condemnatory decision in first instance and other instances to challenge further decisions; they also benefited from such motions,” even by accepting evidence submitted untimely. In fact, Mexico sustains that “all the State’s acts or omissions” alleged as “violations of the American Convention, even those acts or omissions of a procedural nature, have already been evaluated and determined by independent and impartial Mexican judicial bodies through effective and efficient motions” and “with full respect of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection.” 13. The State further alleged that the Court “has uniformly declared that the preliminary objections based on a fourth instance criterion were inapplicable.” However, this case would be exceptional because in previous cases the plaintiffs had not tried to obtain “the revision of the judgments or decisions by the domestic tribunals,” but the determination of “whether an act or omission by the State ha[d] resulted in a violation of a right protected by the American Convention,” while in this case “the idea would be to review the decisions made by the domestic case, and j) newsletter from the General Attorney’s Office including the depositions stating that the rhodizonate test does not work on wet hands; iv) the physical and psychological treatment of the alleged victims: k) reasons why the alleged victims were released, and identification and specification of the corresponding medical reports, l) did the State conduct proceedings to collaborate with the entrance of Physicians for Human Rights to the penitentiary center where the alleged victims were held?, m) was a medical check-up allowed to be made by the physicians not belonging to state institutions when the alleged victims were detained?, n) explanation about the coincidences and/or differences in the medical reports that seem to have provided the grounds for the decision to release the alleged victims in November 2001 and the medical report by Mr. Tramsen, Ph. and Mr. Tidball-Binz, Ph., from Physicians for Human Rights- Denmark on July 31, 2000. Lastly, independent of the above questions to all the parties, the Inter-American Commission was requested to establish clearly the reason why the elements considered in the claim were not sufficient to conclude that there were acts of torture against the alleged victims. 23 Agustín Martin, Alejandra Nuño, Luis Carlos Buob and Viviana Krsticevic signed by CEJIL; Luis Arriaga, Stephanie E. Brewer and Jaqueline Sáenz signed by Centro Prodh; Abel Barrera signed by Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan” [Human Rights Center of the Mountain “Tlachinollan”].