B. Considerations of the Court 57. As a preliminary consideration, it should be recalled that this Court has affirmed that the Inter-American human rights system consists of a domestic level, through which each State must guarantee the rights and freedoms provided for in the Convention and investigate and, if necessary, prosecute and punish any violations committed; and that if a specific case is not resolved at the local or national level, the Convention provides an international tier where the principal bodies are the Commission and this Court. This Court also indicated that when a matter has been settled under domestic law, according to the provisions of the Convention, the matter need not be brought to the Inter-American Court for approval or confirmation. This is based in the principle of complementarity (or subsidiarity) that informs the Inter-American System of Human Rights, which is, as expressed in the Preamble to the American Convention, “reinforcing and complementary to the protection offered by the domestic order of the American States.”61 58. This subsidiary nature of the international jurisdiction means that the system of protection established by the American Convention on Human Rights is not a substitute for the national jurisdictions, but rather it complements them.62 Thus, the State is the principal guarantor of human rights and that, as a consequence, if a violation of said rights occurs, the State must resolve the issue in the domestic system and provide redress to the victim before resorting to international forums.63 In this sense, recent case law has recognized that all authorities of a State Party to the Convention have the obligation to exercise "conventionality control",64 so that the interpretation and application of national law is consistent with the State's international human rights obligations. 59. The above means that a dynamic and complementary control of the States’ treaty-based obligations to respect and ensure human rights has been established between the domestic authorities (who have the primary obligation) and the international instance (complementarily), so that their decision criteria can be established.65 Thus, the Court’s case law includes cases in which decisions of domestic courts have been examined in order to establish violations of the Convention in the specific case;66 have settled the alleged violation;67 ordered reasonable reparations,68 or exercised an adequate control of conventionality.69 In this sense, the Court has pointed out that Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia, supra, para. 33, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 73. 62 Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 137, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 74. 63 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 66, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 74. 64 When a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention. This forces them to see that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its purpose and that have not had any legal effects since their inception. In other words, the Judiciary must exercise a sort of “conventionality control” between the domestic legal provisions which are applied to specific cases and the American Convention on Human Rights. To perform this task, the Judiciary has to take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court. 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 Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 93. 65 Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 143, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para. 75. 66 Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru, supra, paras. 139-141. See also, Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia, supra, paras. 32-24 and operative paragraph 1. 67 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. 97-115. 68 See, for example, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, paras. 334-336. 69 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 Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 61 17