19 I am not affirming this at the present time – that this destination is more in keeping with the general regime of reparations and the protection of human rights than the simple return to the State of an amount that for a long time has been excluded, owing to the judgment, from regular public expenditure and was attributed, by the judgment, to a purpose linked to the protection of those rights. 72. It will also be interesting to examine some implications of the system of reparations in favor of the victims, since they should be able to enjoy the rights resulting from the unlawful act in the best conditions. In this respect, it is interesting to recall that the inter-American jurisdiction is complementary to the domestic jurisdiction, and only supplements it when the latter does not protect internationally recognized rights effectively. In other words, this jurisdiction intervenes to satisfy the right of individuals – among other related purposes of the greatest transcendence that I will not attempt to examine now – and should not, in any way, signify a reduction in the terms of the subjective rights and their substantive consequences. This idea is included in the norms of interpretation contained in Article 29 of the Convention. It may be seen, in particular, in subparagraph (b) of this article, which prohibits any interpretation of the Pact of San José that “restrict[s] the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said States is a party.” 73. In several judgments, the Inter-American Court has referred to national legislation and/or instances of domestic law in order to quantify the financial consequences of the violation committed. Obviously, in these cases, the Court has abstained from formulating a guilty verdict, leaving it to the domestic system to adopt the relevant consequences of the violation committed. To the contrary, it has established the guilty verdict clearly, when this has been pertinent, as corresponds to its jurisdictional obligation. Nevertheless, at the same time, it has recognized that some aspects of that decision may be defined more adequately under national law and by the domestic authorities, as has occurred in cases that involve labor compensation, commercial calculations, determination of possession or ownership, etc., although this obviously does not imply leaving the definition of essential points of the guilty verdict in the hands of third parties or waiving the authority to monitor compliance with its decisions, which is inherent to its jurisdictional mandate and without which it could not comply with the attributes and obligations assigned to it in Articles 33.b), 62(1), 63(1) and 65 of the Convention. 74. In other words, there are considerations of a practical nature, and even of fairness, that justify the possible and appropriate referral of certain aspects to domestic norms and instances, so that they may be implemented within the framework of the declaration of the guilty verdict previously formulated by the international Court. In this respect, the objective application of domestic law could possible improve the victim’s situation as regards pecuniary issues. In this case, is it pertinent that the international judgment should obstruct the injured party’s possibility of obtaining a more favorable result before domestic legal proceedings, if this is possible under national norms? If the answer to this question is negative, could it then be understood that the Court’s decision constitutes a “base” or “minimum limit” of compensation, which could be improved before the domestic instances, when there are grounds in domestic law to achieve this advantage? Is it not possible that the non-pecuniary reparations ordered by the Court may be expanded and improved when the State, by mutual agreement with the beneficiaries – and even without this agreement – determines this expansion or improvement? If so, why cannot the pecuniary reparations also be expanded and improved, should