86 whole process took less than two years and that the domestic authorities determined that the facts contained in the criminal complaint did not constitute offenses under Venezuelan law. 294. The Court considers that, from the information provided, it can be concluded that the complaint filed by RCTV was analyzed by various domestic courts and that RCTV was able to present remedies of appeal and cassation against the decisions that dismissed its claims. The Court notes that it has no evidence to determine whether the actions of the different courts that intervened in the criminal proceedings were contrary to the obligation to investigate. In addition, the Court stresses that the nature of the international jurisdiction is complementary and supportive and, thus, it does not perform the functions of a court of “fourth instance.”329 This means that the Court is not a higher court or an appellate court to resolve disagreements between the parties relating to the assessment of evidence or the application of domestic law with regard to aspects that are not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations.330 295. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State did not violate Article 8 of the Convention in the processing of the criminal complaint. A.4. Judicial proceedings on the seizure of assets A.4.1 Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 296. The Commission alleged the violation of both Article 8 and Article 25 of the Convention based on the judicial proceedings on the seizure of assets. In its analysis, the Commission considered three points raised by the representatives: the presumed victims’ right of defense, the alleged delay in deciding the objection to the injunction, and the alleged lack of impartiality of the SCJ. 297. Regarding the presumed victims’ right of defense, the Commission argued that Article 8 of the Convention had been violated because “before ordering the transfer of RCTV’s assets to the State – or, in any case, after having done so – the Constitutional Chamber should have taken measures to ensure that the owners of the property in question were able to exercise their right of defense.” The Commission also argued that “[i]t was a violation of due process for a court to order seizure of the property essential for a media outlet to operate without even notifying that media outlet beforehand of the existence of the proceeding. Lastly, the Commission indicated that it “fail[ed] to understand how the media outlet could be regarded as nothing more than an interested third party vis-à-vis a court order to seize its property, and was not given the right to make arguments and offer evidence in defense and support of its own interests.” 298. Regarding the alleged delay in deciding the objection to the interim measures, the Commission stressed that “the proceedings that resulted in the interim measures issued by the Constitutional Chamber were decided within the space of one and three days, respectively, in stark contrast to the more than five years that have passed without the Constitutional Chamber issuing its ruling on the objection to those measures.” The Commission also asserted that The Preamble to the American Convention states that international protection should be seen 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, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, para. 81. 329 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 20, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Rio Cacarica Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, para. 225. 330