36. The State maintained that “by arguing the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the [domestic] judicial proceedings,” the InterAmerican Commission and the petitioners are attempting to make the Court re-examine the evidence, which means that the Court “would act as a fourth judicial instance, in violation of the [Convention].” 37. Both the Commission and the representatives asked the Court to reject this preliminary objection, because the State’s arguments were not of a preliminary nature. The representatives indicated that Dominican Republic was attempting to invalidate the arguments concerning the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. In addition, the Commission indicated that it had asked the Court to rule on the domestic proceedings because it considered that the State had failed to comply with the American Convention “owing to the acts and omissions of its authorities in the context of the investigation and the criminal proceedings.” Considerations of the Court 38. This Court has established that the nature of the international jurisdiction is subsidiary, 37 additional, and complementary; 38 hence, it does not perform the functions of a court of “fourth instance.” It is for the Court to decide whether, in each specific case, the State has violated a right protected by the Convention, thus incurring international responsibility. Consequently, this Court is not a higher court or a court of appeal to decide disagreements between the parties with regard to the scope of the evidence or the application of domestic law on aspects that are not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations. 39 39. The Court has indicated that preliminary objections are acts that seek to prevent the analysis of the merits of a disputed matter by contesting the admissibility of an application or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or an aspect of the latter, owing either to the person, the matter, the time, or the place, provided that these objections are of a preliminary nature. 40 If these objections cannot be examined without previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be examined by means of a preliminary objection. 41 40. The Court has also indicated that, for this objection to be admissible, it would be necessary that the petitioner request the Court to review the judgment of a domestic court “owing to its incorrect assessment of the evidence, the facts, or domestic law, without 37 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 No. 157, para. 66, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 18. 38 The Preamble of the American Convention indicates that the international protection “reinforce[es] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” See also, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 31; The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No. 6, para. 26; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 61, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 18. 39 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 18. 40 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 19. 41 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States, supra note 27, para. 39, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 19. 15