December 28, 1977, and recognized the Court's contentious jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 16. In this case, the State presented a preliminary objection that it called "lack of jurisdiction of the Court [...] because of the subject matter and the use of the [Inter-American Human Rights System] as a fourth instance," which will be analyzed below. A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 17. The State alleged that the alleged victim's intention is to use the Inter-American System "as an appellate jurisdiction," since its international claim "is based on disagreement with the decisions made" by the national instances in the administrative and constitutional fields, including the resolution of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the National Police, the judgments handed down in the constitutional amparo and protection action proceedings, and the judgment issued in the unconstitutionality action. The State pointed out that the allegations presented by the alleged victim's representative "clearly demonstrate the questioning of the evidentiary assessment made by the national judicial authorities,” as well as with respect to "the application of domestic law in relation [to] the assessment of the rules used for the imposition of the administrative penalty." The State added that the mere dissatisfaction of the interested party with the decisions made at the domestic level does not empower the Court to review such measures since it is not an appellate court. It requested that the preliminary objection raised by the opposition be accepted. 18. The Commission indicated that, contrary to the State's arguments, the alleged victim has not invoked a "mere disagreement" with the decisions of the domestic jurisdiction, but has alleged various human rights violations in the processing of the disciplinary process to which he was subjected and which led to his dismissal from the National Police. The Commission stated that it is not the intention of the alleged victim or the Commission for the Court to review the judgments issued by national authorities, but rather for the violations committed to be declared, which "must be clarified on the merits." It requested that the preliminary objection be dismissed. The representatives, for their part, submitted their observations extemporaneously. B. Considerations of the Court 19. This Court has indicated that, to determine whether the actions of judicial organs constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations, the Court will proceed to examine the respective domestic proceedings. In order to establish its compatibility with the American Convention.9 Consequently, the Court is not a fourth instance of judicial review, insofar as it examines the conformity of internal judicial decisions with the American Convention and not with domestic law. In this case, the Court notes that both the Commission and the representatives have presented allegations of violations of rights recognized in the American Convention, allegedly perpetrated by the State, specifically related to domestic proceedings. Thus, the Court's settled case law indicates that the determination of whether or not the actions of judicial authorities constitute a violation of the international obligations of the State may lead the Court to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish their 9 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 Digna Ochoa et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 38.