19 impartiality and judicial independence, and on the other hand, the subsidiary nature of the action of the organs of the System, that cannot act as the highest tribunals and examine alleged errors of fact or law committed by national courts that have acted within their jurisdiction. 45. In relation with the Non-compliance Action No. 153, the representatives noted that: a) said remedy was not established in law at the time the case was presented to the Commission; b) the role of the persons legally entitled to press charges is limited and does not include the next of kin or their representatives; c) the Communist Party of Brazil, whom the State noted could file said remedy, is not the legal representative of the next of kin, and thus, cannot file said action in their name, and d) said action does not constitute an appropriate remedy to repair the enforced disappearances. Therefore, they concluded that it is absurd to require the exhaustion of the mentioned remedy. On the other hand, the representatives argued that the decision of the Supreme Federal Court, in granting amnesty to the agents of the repression that committed crimes against humanity, objectively prevents the search for justice and access to the truth sought by the victims. As an issue that is the purpose of the litigation of the present case, the argument presented by the State of the formula of fourth instance is not supported. Given that the representatives affirm the subsidiary nature of the international jurisdiction, they consider that the analysis of all the elements that constitute continued violations to the rights of the victims and their next of kin is essential for the determination of the international responsibility of the State. 2. The Court’s considerations 46. The Court notes that, based on the Non-compliance Action No. 153, the State presented two preliminary objections, one related to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and the other related to the formula of fourth instance. In regard to the first of these arguments, the Court noted that the State did not present said exception at the appropriate procedural opportunity and dismissed the argument (supra para. 40). Although the fact that the objection was timebarred is the reason for its inadmissibility, the Inter-American Court deems it appropriate to clarify the following. First, it is evident that the Non-compliance Action is not a remedy that can be considered available, not only because it did not exist at the time the petition was filed before the Commission, but also because the parties, such as the next of kin of the alleged victims, are not able to use it, given that the only parties able to legally file a complaint are specific State officials and institutions and social groups.43 In addition, the purpose of said action is to avoid or repair a possible injury from a Fundamental Principle, which in the case before the Federal Supreme Tribunal was expressed in a specific constitutional interpretation. From this, it is clear that it also was not an appropriate remedy to repair the alleged violations, namely to ascertain the facts, establish the individual responsibility which arose from the violations, and to determine the whereabouts of the alleged disappeared victims. 47. On the other hand, the Court notes that the argument regarding the “fourth instance” was presented by the State in the public hearing of the present 43 Article 103 of the Federal Constitution establishes that this action can be presented by: I. the President of the Republic; II. the Directing Board of the Federal Senate; III. the Directing Board of the Chamber of Deputies; IV. the Directing Board of a State Legislative Assembly or of the Federal District Legislative Chamber; V. a State Governor or the Federal District Governor; VI. the Attorney General of the Republic; VII. the Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association; VIII. a political party represented in the National Congress; IX. a confederation of labour unions or a professional association of a nationwide nature