assumed jurisdiction, it would be substituting the domestic authorities and acting as a kind of “domestic fourth instance court of appeal.” In addition, it affirmed that several domestic remedies to investigate supposed human rights violations perpetrated against Hacienda Brasil Verde workers had been filed at different times and duly processed, and that they had all been conducted and concluded by the competent authorities. 67. Lastly, the State indicated that the domestic courts had functioned appropriately to redress the pecuniary damage suffered by the Hacienda Brasil Verde workers, and asserted that the Court did not have competence to rule on the request for reparation for pecuniary damage. 68. The Commission indicated that it was for the Court, at the merits stage, to analyze whether the domestic proceedings had constituted an appropriate and effective means of achieving judicial protection in relation to the violated rights; thus, the State’s allegation could not be decided as a preliminary objection. 69. The representatives indicated that, for the preliminary objection of the fourth instance to be admissible, the victims’ representatives would have had to ask the Court to review the domestic judgments with regard to an incorrect evaluation of the evidence, the facts or domestic law only. They asserted that they had not asked the Court to review the rulings issued by the domestic courts; rather, they had questioned the rulings made by different State agents that had resulted in violations of the obligation to provide effective judicial protection and judicial guarantees, the lack of appropriate and effective measures to prevent the violation of the victims’ human rights, and the absence of comprehensive assistance for them, which constituted specific violations of the Convention. 70. Lastly, the representatives indicated that, in this case, the Court should analyze whether violations of judicial protection and guarantees of due process were effectively constituted, including an evaluation of the reasons for the delay in the investigation procedure and its eventual prescription, and this corresponded to the examination of the merits of the case. E.2. Considerations of the Court 71. The Court has established that the international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary and complementary nature46 and, therefore, it does not perform the functions of a court of “fourth instance.” Moreover, it is not a high court or court of appeal to decide any disagreements between the parties on elements concerning the evaluation of the evidence or the application of domestic law in relation to aspects that do not directly concern compliance with international human rights obligations.47 The Preamble to the American Convention states that the international protection should be considered as “reinforcing or complementing 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. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61, and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015, para.17. 46 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 16, and Case of García Ibarra et al., para. 17. 47 19