statements on the judgment publicly, whichever the reasons to do so, accepting the request for a public hearing was, at least, an act of diplomatic courtesy that, in the especially complex context in which the facts of the case occurred, should have been expressed to the State Party, who in good faith presented a serious argument to the Court within a judicial proceeding in which it appears as the respondent. Besides, the experience has always been that in the public hearings the Court gathers information of great importance, from a direct source, which at least helps to better understand the position of the petitioner, even when from reading the written texts the judge considers that it does not have juridical doubts. The Court has already held public hearings on other opportunities for the interpretation of judgments. 1 IV THE JURIDICAL ASPECT OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT 5. The problematic presented by the Peruvian State, which must not be ignored because it is not exactly technical-juridical, originates in the principles themselves of the reason for the existence of the international systems for the protection of human rights, in this case the Inter-American system, which were approved by the States themselves, specifically the protection of the human being’s fundamental rights with regard to the violations committed by the States, reason why the essence itself of the system is subsidiarity. The system’s bodies do not replace the State in its main and fundamental obligation to protect and guarantee the human rights of their population, but instead they offer that protection once the State has not done so, as is its main obligation. In this case, fourteen years had gone by since the facts occurred in the year 1992 and up to the date of the judgment in 2006. 6. Besides, the litigation before the Inter-American system is totally different to the criminal litigation carried out in the domestic system of the States: in the latter, the State intervenes as the accusing party against an individual allegedly responsible of violating the domestic legislation, reason for which the main purpose of the process is to determine and, in its case, declare the criminal responsibility of the person who committed the violation. On the other hand, in the international jurisdiction the individual becomes an alleged victim of the violation by the State of any of the rights protected by the American Convention or any other international treaty applicable. And if the violation is proven, pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention, the right infringed must be restored and, in its case, if it proceeds, payment of a fair compensation must be ordered. In this sense, the Tribunal has stated: The Court considers it fundamental to reiterate, as it has done when deciding on other cases, that it is not a criminal court that can analyze the criminal responsibility of individuals.2 1 Cases of Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz against Honduras, public hearing of August 14, 1990 and case of Cesti Hurtado against Peru, public hearing of January 25, 2000. Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 134; Case of Suárez Rosero, Merits, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series C No. 35, para. 37; Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 1, 2006, Series C No. 141, para. 122; Case of Fermín Ramírez, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 20, 2005, Series C No. 126, para. 63; Case of Raxcacó Reyes, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, para. 55; 2 2