31. The proceedings to this point set forth questions of law, insofar as the terms of Article 8(2)(h) are concerned, and questions of fact and law in terms of the claims raised with respect to Article 9. The claims presented are not so manifestly groundless as to preclude their admissibility. 32. With respect to the State’s argument that review of this petition would require the Commission to act as a “fourth instance” beyond the sphere of its competence, it is true that the IACHR is “not competent to review judgments handed down by national courts acting within the scope of their jurisdiction and observing due judicial guarantees.”1 More specifically, the Commission “cannot serve as an appellate court to examine alleged errors of internal law or fact that may have been committed by the domestic courts acting within their jurisdiction.”2 However, within its mandate to ensure the observance of the rights set forth in the Convention, the Commission is necessarily “competent to declare a petition admissible and rule on its merits when it portrays a claim that a domestic legal decision constitutes a disregard of the right to a fair trial,” or alleges other violations of rights protected there under.3 The Commission finds in the present case that the petitioners have stated claims concerning alleged violations of the right to appeal a judgment to a higher court, as well as to freedom from ex post facto laws, which, if consistent with other requirements and shown to be true, could tend to establish the violation of rights protected under Articles 8, 9 and 1(1) of the American Convention. 33. Bearing in mind the claims raised concerning the right to judicial guarantees, protection and review, and the principle of jura novit curia, in its decision on the merits the Commission will, to the extent relevant, also examine the potential application of Article 25 of the American Convention, concerning the right to judicial protection, and Article 2, concerning the obligation to give domestic legal effect to the rights set forth therein. V. CONCLUSIONS 34. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of the instant case and that the petition is admissible, pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the factual and legal arguments set forth above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 1. To declare the present case admissible with respect to the alleged violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8, 9, 25, 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. 2. To notify the parties of this decision. 3. To continue with the analysis of the merits of the case. 1 See generally, IACHR, Report Nº 101/00, case 11.630 Arauz et al. (Nicaragua), Oct. 16, 2000, in Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, para. 56, citing IACHR, Report Nº 39/96, case 11.673 Marzioni (Argentina), Oct. 15, 1996, in Annual Report of the IACHR 1996, paras. 50-51. 2 IACHR, Report Nº 7/01, case 11.716 Güelfi (Panama), Feb. 23, 2001, in Annual Report of the IACHR 2000, para. 20, quoting Marzioni, supra, para. 51. 3 Id.