functions of a court of “fourth instance.” The Court will decide if, in the case concerned, the State violated a right protected by the Convention, thereby incurring international responsibility. This implies that the Court is not a court of appeals that is able to settle the disagreements of the parties regarding the scope of the application of domestic law in areas that are not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations. It is for this reason that the Court has maintained that, in principle, “the courts of the State are expected to examine the facts and evidence submitted in particular cases.” 7 The foregoing implies that upon assessing the compliance of certain international obligations, such as guaranteeing that a domestic legal judgment be duly complied with, there is an intrinsic relationship between the analysis of international law and that of domestic law.8 19. The Court has affirmed that preliminary objections are actions that seek to prevent an analysis of the merits of the matter in question, by way of an objection regarding the admissibility of an application or the jurisdiction of the Court to hear a specific case or any part of it, based on the person, matter, time, or place, when said arguments are of a preliminary nature.9 If these actions cannot be assessed without also analyzing the merits of the case, they cannot be analyzed under a preliminary objection.10 20. Given the foregoing, and in consideration of the alleged objection filed regarding “fourth instance,” the Court must verify if in the steps effectively taken at the domestic level there was a violation of international obligations of the State derived from Inter-American instruments that grant the Court jurisdiction. The Court deems it timely to note, as it has done before in its jurisprudence,11 that in ascertaining whether the actions of judicial bodies constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations, this may lead the Court to examine the domestic proceedings in order to establish compatibility with the American Convention, and in that case, the domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole. In this case, the Court must analyze the merits of the case. 21. The Court notes that, in its observations of July 10, 2006, in the proceeding before the Commission, the State filed the objection of court of appeals, affirming that “the nonconformity alleged by the petitioner with the domestic judicial decision 7 Case of Nogueira of Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 5, para. 16. 8 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 5, para. 16. 9 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment on May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 11. 10 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 9, para. 17, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra 5, para. 17. 11 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 Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha Do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 9, para. 49, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 5, para. 19. 7