7 legal representation – were definitively dismissed by the Caribbean Court of Justice in the [p]etitioner’s appeal.” Thus, “the State […] submit[ted] that […] the [p]etition [i]s inadmissible.” 22. In this regard, “the Commission consider[ed] that the arguments submitted by the State do not give rise to the need for observations from it on this matter.” 23. The representatives contended that “[Mr. Cadogan’s] complaints go far beyond the simple allegation that the CCJ’s decision was wrong or unjust.” The alleged victim “contended that [his] treatment during the course of [the] trial in relation to the defense of diminished responsibility and the inadequacy of his legal representation constitute violations of his Convention rights.” Thus, the alleged victim “ask[ed] the Court to determine whether the State of Barbados is responsible for the violation of the American Convention, a matter which clearly falls within the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court.” 24. This Court considers that the application submitted by the Inter-American Commission does not seek to review the judgments of domestic courts or of the Caribbean Court of Justice, but rather seeks a pronouncement that the State violated several precepts of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Cadogan, including the right to a fair trial and the right to life. On numerous occasions, this Tribunal has held that clarification of whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the actions of its judicial bodies may lead to a situation in which the Court must examine the respective domestic proceedings in order to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. In light of this, the consideration of domestic proceedings must take into account all decisions, including those of the courts of appeal, and in this case the Caribbean Court of 9 Justice. 25. Consequently, the Court considers that the claims relating to the alleged victim’s diminished responsibility for the crime of murder and the effectiveness of his legal representation are questions directly linked to the merits of the controversy that may be examined by this Tribunal in light of the American Convention without contravening the “fourth instance” rule. The preliminary objection is therefore dismissed. C) The Commission as a Party in this Process 26. The State emphasized “that all of the complaints in the present case [that] are identified by the Commission in its [a]pplication, except one aspect of the relief requested, have been resolved by the State.” “[T]he State submit[ed] that [the] only […] outstanding issue [is] that of commutation[, and argued that the] process for such relief may at any time be initiated [domestically] by the [p]etitioner himself.” Thus, “the only complainant with juridical personality to appear before the Court no longer has any substantive basis of complaint under Inter-American human rights norms.” Therefore, the State submitted “that the case should be withdrawn by the Commission, or struck out on the Court’s own initiative.” 27. “[T]he Commission considere[d] that the willingness expressed by the State to abolish mandatory [death] sentencing and to repeal the ‘savings clause’ represents an important step forward in the process of bringing domestic law and practice into compliance 9 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 6, para. 44, and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 22-23.