the adversarial principle, procedural equality, and legal certainty have been complied with.9 24. The Court does not observe that, in its arguments, the State has specifically indicated how the situation violated its right of defense, or in what way it was prevented from asserting its arguments during the procedure, and any possible prejudice caused. 25. In addition, on reviewing the file of the procedure before the Commission, the Court does not note that, at any time, procedural equality was infringed, or that the State was prevented from accessing elements of the petition, or from setting out its defense. The State was able to raise objections and express its position when it deemed this pertinent during the procedure before the Commission. 26. The case file shows that, although the Commission forwarded the State a series of communications received from the petitioner at various times, all of them were sent in a single communication and formed an integral part of the petition. Furthermore, the State was given the opportunity to present its observations on all the communications and, therefore, the State was not left defenseless. Consequently, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. B. Fourth instance objection B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 27. The State argued that the alleged victim and his representatives were using the inter-American system as a “fourth instance,” particularly in relation to the alleged violation of the right to be heard by an impartial judge. In the State’s opinion, this violation was presented by the alleged victim for the first time in a brief of November 5, 2012 (approximately seven years after his initial petition); whereas the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided that this defect did not exist on February 15, 2013. According to the State, the Court only has competence to decide on the content of judicial decisions that arbitrarily contravene the rights protected by the Convention. It added that the representatives were seeking for the Court to review, ex officio, the ruling of the Third Chamber of Costa Rica’s Supreme Court, without indicating specific elements or errors to substantiate this. It also indicated that this point was expressly excluded by the Commission in its Admissibility and Merits Report. 28. The Commission indicated that, in Report No. 380/20, it had not found the Costa Rican State responsible for the violation of the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) and, in particular, the guarantee of an impartial judge. It added that the allegations of this violation were included by the petitioner, both during the processing of the petition before the Commission and in the pleadings and motions brief filed before the Court. It indicated that, in this specific case, the allegations made by the petitioner related to a possible violation of the guarantee of the impartiality of the judge established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 29. The representatives indicated that they did not want the Court to function as a fourth instance. Moreover, they argued that the Court had allowed an alleged victim’s representatives to allege the violation of rights other than those mentioned by the 9 Cf. Case of Grande v. Argentina. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 231, para. 46, and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 23, 2022. Series C No. 451, para. 18. 7