9 tribunals,” since such tribunals would have exercised “effectively the ex officio ‘conventionality control’ that must prevail for a fourth instance exception to be applicable.” Consequently, the State requested the Court to declare itself not competent since “all the merits of the case […] were analyzed judicially” in judicial instances at which “the non-existence of torture was determined” and “in a proceeding conducted pursuant to the right to a fair trial […] the criminal responsibility of the [alleged victims] was evidenced.” Lastly, the State requested that, in case this exception was declared inapplicable, the Court should rule “on the criteria, juridical rationale and conditions in which, even if the national tribunals exercise a conventionality control,” the Court “may hear the matters submitted to its jurisdiction.” 14. Lastly, the Commission emphasized that “it is not its intention to present issues related to the interpretation or application of the domestic law of the State to the facts” in this case “but that it requests the Court to declare that the Mexican State is responsible for the violation” of the rights stipulated in the American Convention.” Furthermore, the Commission highlighted the fact that “it may have timely and duly analyzed the question of admissibility in this case” and that in the Merits report and in the application, it concluded that there was “lack of investigation and substantiation of the application filed for the alleged acts of torture” and “the irregularities of the criminal proceedings against the [alleged] victims.” Lastly, the Commission pointed out that “the exception lodged by the Mexican State is groundless, since the State’s arguments presuppose an evaluation of the merits of the application and the evidence submitted in relation to the judicial system and the decisions of the domestic tribunals in this case.” 15. In turn, the representatives pointed out that “the State’s argument cannot be considered as a preliminary objection since such argument is based on the compatibility of the proceedings of its own domestic bodies with the American Convention,” thus being “an argument regarding the merits.” Furthermore, the representatives sustained that they do not request to revise “the way in which the Mexican tribunals applied their domestic legislation or adopted their decisions” but “the alleged violations of the Inter-American instruments,” taking into account that the State is internationally responsible for the acts or omissions of any of its powers or bodies, including the tribunals. The representatives added that they also request to declare the “incompatibility of the military tribunals’ competence to investigate the reported facts on torture with the provisions of the abovementioned Convention.” In view of the argument that the exception of “fourth instance” is applicable because all the violations alleged before the Court had already been evaluated and considered by the judicial bodies, the representatives affirmed that it would not be effective since “several human rights violations under examination in this case were never evaluated by the domestic tribunals or, if they [were], it was done in an [in]adequate manner”, as would have been the case of torture. As regards the argument that the preliminary objection of “fourth instance” would apply because the domestic Judiciary would have exercised “the ex officio conventionality control that must prevail so that the exception of fourth instance is applicable,” the representatives pointed out that the evaluation of compliance with such control “is within the competence of the Inter-American Court, like the rest of all the obligations under the Convention.” Furthermore, they stated that “it is not true that such ‘conventionality control’ had really been exercised.” 2. Considerations of the Court 16. This Court has established that the international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary,24 reinforcing and complementary nature,25 and therefore does not serve 24 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C N° 157, para. 66;