82. The Inter-American Defenders requested that this objection be dismissed, since neither the Commission nor the alleged victims intend to use the Inter-American System as a fourth instance, nor have they requested that the Court issue an acquittal or conduct a comprehensive review of the convictions. On the contrary, they stated that they sought to: ensure the validity of an effective remedy that establishes a true comprehensive review of the convictions; to determine a special procedure for the review of sentences in accordance with international standards; to ensure access by those deprived of liberty to the written judgment document; to ensure that their conditions of detention are consistent with the principle of human dignity; and to protect their health and physical integrity. 83. The common interveners SIPDH contended that the State’s argument on the principle of subsidiarity is not a preliminary objection, but part of the debate as to whether or not the petitioners exhausted the remedies under domestic law. In this regard, they reiterated that the petitioners pursued the ordinary remedies available to them at the time they were convicted, without being obliged to exhaust the exceptional remedies of cassation and review. Regarding the use of the inter-American system as a “fourth instance,” they argued that this argument should be rejected because at no time did they ask the Commission to review the facts or to act as a criminal court since that is not within its purview; rather, the facts of the joined case, in relation to Article 8(2)(h), would point to the lack of a comprehensive review of the judgment before a higher court. Lastly, in their final written arguments, they noted that the State failed to demonstrate that the facts investigated in each criminal proceeding were those “questioned or challenged” before the organs of the inter-American system. D.2. Considerations of the Court 84. The Court has established that for the “fourth instance” objection to be admissible, it is necessary that the applicant or petitioner seek a review by the Court of a domestic court’s ruling on the grounds of its incorrect assessment of the evidence, facts or domestic law, without at the same time alleging that said ruling violated international treaties over which the Court has jurisdiction. 97 85. The Court has also indicated that when assessing compliance with certain international obligations, there may be an intrinsic interrelation between the analysis of international law and domestic law. 98 Therefore, in line with customary law, 99 the determination of 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 in order to establish their compatibility with the American Convention 100 and the inter-American instruments that grant it jurisdiction. Consequently, this alone does not constitute a violation of the principle of fourth instance. 86. First, the Court considers that the allegations made by the State about the Commission, as well as those of the representatives of Groups 2 (Rafael Rojas Madrigal), 3 (Luis Archbold Jay and Enrique Archbold Jay) and 6 (Manuel Hernández Quesada), do not seek to have the Court review the judgments of the domestic courts due to a possible incorrect assessment of the evidence gathered during the criminal proceedings, the facts established 97 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. 18, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 56. 98 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 16, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, supra, para. 56. 99 Cf. U.N. General Assembly, Resolution on State responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, A/RES/56/83, of December 12, 2001, Annex, Article 4. 100 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 Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, supra, para. 56. 33