15. The State expressed that the “international protection offered by the monitoring bodies of the Convention is of a subsidiary nature,” and therefore, the “Inter-American Court of Human Rights does not examine the resolutions, rather it does so, always and only if, they involve established human rights violations.” The State affirmed that “the claim of the alleged victim would lead the Court to analyze and decide on issues of fact and law, within the case sub judice and the Ecuadorian legal system, which oversteps its jurisdiction.” In fact, Ecuador claimed that “the Ecuadorian tribunals in its resolutions always preserve all judicial guarantees for the petitioner and they are issued pursuant to the guiding lines of due process and without violating any rights protected by the Convention.” 16. On its behalf, the representatives noted that at no time did they request the Court to “determine the errors of fact or of law committed by the full Constitutional Tribunal,” but rather, “to declare the responsibility of the State for the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention, as it has not complied with the judgment rendered by the highest body of constitutional control.” They added that what the State had affirmed “would be in contradiction with the petition that a violation be declared for noncompliance” with the judgment rendered by the Full Chamber of the Constitutional Tribunal on March 12, 2002. The representatives highlighted that “demanding compliance with a legal judgment does not constitute using the InterAmerican Court as a court of fourth instance” and as such, they requested that the Court declare the preliminary objection inadmissible. 17. The Commission argued that “it does not plan on presenting issues related to the interpretation or application of the domestic law of the State to the facts” of said judgment, “but rather to request the Court to declare the State of Ecuador as responsible for the violation” of some of the rights enshrined in Inter-American instruments. Moreover, the Commission highlighted that it had analyzed “duly and opportunely the issues regarding admissibility in the present case,” and that in the report on the merits and in the application, it considered that “the State was responsible for the violation of judicial protection and judicial guarantees [fair trial] to the detriment of Mr. Mejía Idrovo.” Lastly, it noted that the “objection filed by the State was unfounded, given that the States arguments assumed an assessment of the merits of the application, that which does not constitute a preliminary objection.” Considerations of the Court 18. This Court has established that international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary,5 reinforcing, and complimentary nature,6 reason for which it does not perform the 5 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Perú. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66; I/A Court of H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 16. 6 In the Preamble of the American Convention, it is stated that international protection is “in the form of to convention 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 to No. 2, para. 31; The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series to No. 6, para. 26; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 5, para. 16. 6