retirement;108 three persons did not choose a type of benefit,109 and one person requested redeployment.110 132. With respect to the persons who had not joined the Special Benefits Program, the State indicated that this was because a) they did not request to be listed in the National Registry; b) their request was rejected by the Executive Commission because they were not entitled to join the Program; c) their request was rejected because they did not present any administrative or judicial claim against Supreme Resolution 028-2009-TR; d) after being rejected, they presented claims but not within the period designated for such act, or e) they were not entitled to join the Program. B.2 Considerations of the Court 133. The Court recalls that the subsidiary nature of the international jurisdiction implies that the system of protection created by the Convention is not a substitute for national jurisdictions, but rather a complement.111 The State, thus, is the principal guarantor of rights of the individual so that, if there is an act that violates such rights, it is the State that must resolve the matter domestically and, if appropriate, repair it before having to respond before international bodies.112 134. In addition and in view of the principle of complementarity, the Court has pointed out that, in order to declare the inadmissibility of the reparations requested of the Court, it is not sufficient that the State recognize that these have already been granted or may be granted through administrative or judicial measures domestically, but rather an assessment must be made to decide whether the State effectively repaired the consequences of the measure or situation that caused the human rights infringement in a specific case, whether the reparations are adequate, or whether there exist guarantees that the domestic mechanisms of reparation are sufficient.113 Consequently, it is not sufficient to argue that access was given to a domestic mechanism to repair the human rights violation of the irregular dismissals or that such mechanism is available to meet future claims, but rather the State must present clear information on how, should it be found to owe reparations, the domestic mechanism would be an effective means to repair the alleged victims, with the 108 The 19 persons are: 1. César Alfredo Andavisa Montero; 2. Elsa Ofelia Dávila Ames; 3. Doris Bertha Franco Flores de Cabrada; 4. María Luz Hinostroza Hurtado; 5. Amparo Aurea Medianero Mena; 6. Maritza Málaga Calderón; 7. Yolanda Nuñez Patiño de Camac; 8. Alberto Nery Rioja Ordóñez; 9. Bertha Jesús Saco Costa; 10. Jorge Eleodoro Santibáñez Espinoza; 11. Flora Amar Cervelión; 12. Facunda Fernández Saavedra; 13. Hortencia (f) Semino Door Valencia; 14. Graciela Enriqueta Jauregui Laveriano; 15. José Santos Mendivil Nina; 16. Ana María Poves Lizano; 17. Guty Petronila Ramos Herreta De Vega; 18. Ludecino Rivas Carrera and 19. Blanca Sobrevilla Gonzales. The three persons are: 1. Luisa Guerra Patiño; 2. Priscila Elizabeth Rojas Adrianzan and 3. Manuel Amilcar Revolledo Chávez. 109 110 Cecilia Meneses Tumba. Cf. 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 Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 138. 111 112 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66 and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 138. Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, para. 143 and Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 208. 113 36