“fourth instance.” For this reason, it requested that the Court accept this preliminary objection and decline to exercise its jurisdiction in the instant case. 29. The representatives explained that the purpose of the instant case is not to revisit or re-examine in a fourth instance a matter that has been decided by the domestic courts. Reference is made to the existence of a criminal offense that violates the Convention and the possibility of its use as mechanism to silence debate of public interest. They also noted the absence of specific measures to reverse the situation experienced by Mr. Baraona. 30. The Commission pointed out that the subject matter of the case concerns violations of the right to freedom of expression, as well as the rights to judicial protection, legality and adaptation of domestic law, and in no way constitutes a fourth instance. Regarding the State’s arguments on the criminal conviction, the Commission emphasized that this aspect relates to the merits and the evaluation of the reparation measures, for which reason the Court could not respond to the State’s arguments at the preliminary objections stage. This means that the State’s argument does not constitute a preliminary objection and should be declared inadmissible by the Court. B.2. Considerations of the Court 31. The Court has indicated that for the fourth instance objection to be admissible, it would be necessary for the petitioner to seek a review of the judgment of a domestic court on the grounds of its incorrect assessment of the evidence, the facts or domestic law, without alleging that such judgment violated international treaties over which the Court has jurisdiction.16 This, in the context of the Court’s consistent case law, which has advised that the decision on whether or not the actions of judicial bodies constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations may lead the Court to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their compatibility with the American Convention.17 32. In this case, the Court notes that the Commission’s claims, which have been taken up by the alleged victim’s representatives, are not limited to the review of the judgments of the domestic courts for possible errors in the assessment of the evidence, in the determination of the facts or in the application of domestic law. On the contrary, they allege the violation of several rights enshrined in the American Convention, within the decisions taken by the national authorities in judicial proceedings. Consequently, in order to determine whether said violations actually occurred, it is essential to analyze, on the one hand, the decisions issued by the different judicial authorities and, on the other hand, their compatibility with the State’s international obligations which, in the end, is a substantive issue that cannot be resolved by means of a preliminary objection. Consequently, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection filed by the State. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 221, para. 18, and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, para. 27. 17 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222, and Case of Mina Cuero v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2022. Series C No. 464, para. 19. 16 10