20 case, subsequent to the presentation of the brief in response to the application. Although Article 38(1) of the Court Rules of Procedure establishes that the procedural moment for the interposition of preliminary objections is in the brief in response to the application, the Court considers that the judgment of the Federal Supreme Tribunal of April 29, 2010, constitutes a supervening fact (infra para. 58) and, as such, it corresponds that the Court rule on said State argument. The Commission and the representatives of the victims had an opportunity to present their arguments regarding this preliminary objection both in the public hearing and in the final written arguments, and thus their right to defense has been guaranteed. 48. The lawsuit brought by the Inter-American Commission does not seek to review the judgment of the Federal Supreme Tribunal, a decision which had not even been issued when said organ presented the application to the InterAmerican Court, but rather it seeks to establish whether the State violated specific international obligations enshrined in the various rules of the American Convention to the detriment of the alleged victims, including, inter alia, the right to not be subjected to a enforced disappearance, derived from Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention, the right to judicial protection, and the judicial guarantees so as to ascertain the facts and determine the individual responsibilities of said facts derived from Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 49. On numerous occasions, the Court has held that ascertaining whether the State violated its international obligations by means of its actions before its judicial organs, can lead to this Court examining the particular domestic procedures, eventually including the decisions of the higher courts, so as to establish the compatibility with the American Convention.44 In the present case, the Inter-American Court is not called to carry out an analysis of the Amnesty Law in relation with the National Constitution of a State, an analysis of domestic law which is not of its jurisdiction, and which is an issue of the Non-compliance Action No. 153 (infra para. 136), but rather it must assess a conventional control, namely to assess the alleged non-compatibility of said law with Brazil’s international obligations pursuant to the American Convention. As a consequence, the arguments in regard to the objections are matters related directly with the merits of the controversy, which can be examined by the Court under American Convention, without contravening the rule of the “fourth instance.” As such, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. IV JURISDICTION 50. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 25, 1992, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. 44 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222; Case of Escher et al., supra note 27, para. 44, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan, supra note 35, para. 12.