reveals cases in which it has referred to decisions of domestic courts to substantiate and conceptualize the violation of the Convention in specific cases;74 while, in other cases, it has recognized that, consistent with international obligations, the domestic organs, instances and courts have adopted adequate measures to remedy the situation that gave rise to the case,75 have already resolved the alleged violation,76 have established reasonable reparations,77 or have exercised a satisfactory control of conventionality.78 In this regard, the Court has indicated that the State’s responsibility under the Convention can only be required at the international level after the State has had the opportunity to recognize, as appropriate, the violation of a right and to redress the harm caused by its own means. 79 Consequently, the Court has established that States are not internationally responsible when they have recognized that an internationally wrongful act has been committed, caused the violation to cease, and redressed the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted that act.80 92. In the instant case, the Court notes that the decision of the Supreme Court of Chile of May 29, 2018, recognized the violation of freedom of expression and ordered that the sanction imposed on Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux be annulled. This sanction was subsequently eliminated from the personnel record of Judge Urrutia Laubreaux. 93. In this regard, the Court recalls that the control of conventionality has been conceived as a mechanism to apply international law, in this case international human rights law, and specifically the American Convention and its sources, including the case law of this Court. 81 The control of conventionality is an obligation for every power, organ or authority of the State Party to the Convention82 and, within their respective terms of reference and the corresponding procedural regulations, they must control that the human rights of the persons Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, supra, paras. 143, 196, 200, 203, 206, 209, 220, 221, 225, and Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 388, para. 167. 74 Cf. Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015. Series C No. 306, para. 103, and Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 167. 75 See, for example, Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, paras. 97 to 115, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 80 76 See, for example, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, paras. 334 to 336, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 80. 77 See, for example, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 239, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 100. 78 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, supra, para. 143, and Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 167. 79 Cf. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 96, and Case of Rosadio Villavicencio v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 167. 80 When a State is a party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges, are subject to that instrument, and this obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not undermined by the application of laws that are contrary to its object and purpose; therefore, judges and organs involved in the administration of justice at every level are obliged to exercise ex officio a “control of conventionality” between domestic law and the American Convention – evidently, within the framework of their respective competences and the corresponding procedural regulations – and, in this task, they must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation of it made by the Inter-American Court, the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, 107. 81 Cf. 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. 225, and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 107. 82 23