perform the role of a court of “fourth instance.” This means that the Court cannot act as a higher court or as an appeal court in settling disputes between parties, on some aspects of the assessment of evidence, or of the application of the domestic law to certain matters not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations. Thus, this Court has held that, in principle, “the courts of the State are called upon to examine the facts and evidence submitted in particular cases.” 26 This implies that when assessing compliance with certain international obligations, such as ensuring that a detention was lawful, there is an intrinsic interrelationship between the analysis of international law and domestic law. 17. The Court has held that preliminary objections are motions aimed at preventing an examination of the merits of the matter called into question, by challenging the admissibility of an application or the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a specific case. or any of its aspects, based on the person, matter, time or place involved, provided that these aspects are of a preliminary nature. 27 If these motions cannot be reviewed without previously analyzing the merits of a case, they cannot be analyzed through a preliminary objection. 28 18. Accordingly, it may be argued that, if the Court were intended to act as a higher court in terms of the scope of the evidence and domestic law, a matter would be submitted to it on which it could not rule and lacks competence, having regard to the subsidiary jurisdiction of an international court. However, for this objection to be applicable, the applicant would need to apply to the Court to review the decision of the domestic court, based on its incorrect assessment of the evidence, the facts or domestic law without, in turn, alleging that such decision was a violation of international treaties over which the Court has jurisdiction. 19. On the contrary, it is up to the Court to ascertain whether or not the State, in the steps effectively taken at domestic level, violated its international obligations stemming from those Inter-American instruments that grant authority to the Court. Thus, according to the Court’s constant case law, the determination of whether or not the actions of the judicial bodies constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations may lead the Court to examine the corresponding domestic proceedings in order to establish their compatibility with the American Convention. 29 This is so because, if it is claimed that a judgment has been incorrect because of a violation of due process, the Court may not refer to this claim as a Series C Nº. 166, para. 47, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 64. 25 The Preamble of the American Convention states that international protection is justified "in the form of a 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. (Art. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982, Series A 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 A Nº 6, para. 26, and Case of Velasquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61. 26 Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C N° 161, para. 80. 27 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 17 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 35. 28 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C N. 184, para. 39; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 27, para. 17 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 27, para. 35. 29 Cf. Case of “Street Children" (Villagrán Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, Nº 63, para. 222; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 27, para. 120; and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 24. 10