must prevail for a fourth instance exception to be applicable.” Consequently, the State asked the Court to declare itself not competent since “all the merits of the case […] were analyzed judicially” in judicial proceedings that “determined the nonexistence of torture” and, “in a proceeding conducted pursuant to the right to a fair trial […] the criminal responsibility of the [alleged victims] was proven.” Finally, the State requested that, in the event of this objection being declared inadmissible, the Court rule “on the criteria, legal grounds and circumstances in which, even when the national courts exercise conventionality control,” the Court “may hear the matters submitted to its jurisdiction.” 14. The Commission argued that it does “not seek to present issues related to the interpretation or application of the domestic law of the State to the facts” in this case “but requests the Court to declare that the Mexican State is responsible for the violation” of the rights enshrined in the stipulated in the inter-American instruments. Furthermore, the Commission emphasized that it had analyzed “the question of admissibility in this case in a timely and proper manner” and that in the Merits report and the application it had concluded that there was “failure to investigate and substantiate the complaint regarding the alleged acts of torture” and “the irregularities of the criminal proceedings against the [alleged] victims.” Lastly, the Commission pointed out that “the objection filed by the Mexican State is groundless, since the State’s arguments presuppose an assessment of the merits of the application and the evidence submitted in relation to the judicial system and the decisions of the domestic courts in this case.” 15. For their part, the representatives pointed out that “the State’s argument cannot be considered as a preliminary objection, since it is based on the compatibility of the actions of its domestic organs with the American Convention,” and therefore “constitutes an argument on the merits.” Furthermore, the representatives held that they are not requesting a review of “the way in which the Mexican courts applied their domestic legislation or made their decisions” but rather of “the alleged violations of the Inter-American instruments,” bearing in mind that the State is internationally responsible for any actions or omissions by any of its powers or bodies, including the courts. The representatives also requested that the Court declare the “incompatibility of the military courts’ jurisdiction to investigate the reported acts of torture with the provisions of the Convention.” As to the argument that the “fourth instance” objection is applicable because all the violations alleged before the Court had already been examined and considered by the judicial bodies, the representatives affirmed that this would not be valid since “several human rights violations under examination in this case were never assessed by the domestic courts or, if they [were], it was not done in the appropriate manner,” as in the case of the alleged torture. As regards the argument that the preliminary objection related to “fourth instance” would apply because the domestic Judiciary would have exercised “the ex officio conventionality control that must prevail for the fourth instance objection to be applicable,” the representatives pointed out that the evaluation of compliance with such control “is within the competence of the Inter-American Court, along with the rest of the obligations under the Convention.” Furthermore, they emphasized that “it is not true that such ‘conventionality control’ was indeed exercised.” 2. Considerations of the Court 16. This Court has established that the international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary, 24 reinforcing and complementary nature, 25 and therefore it does not 24 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C N° 157, para. 66; Case of Zambrano Velez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. 9