not, the international organs may intervene in a complementary manner, within their sphere of competence, in order to ensure and monitor compliance with these obligations. Therefore, the principle of subsidiarity determines the scope and the limits of the intervention of the international organs when States have not complied satisfactorily with the obligations to respect and to ensure human rights. In this way, the organs of the interAmerican system may intervene in matters related to compliance with the commitments made by the States Parties to the American Convention only when these States have not complied with the said obligations, or have not done so satisfactorily. A contrario sensu, it corresponds to the Inter-American Commission and to this Court to abstain from intervening in these matters when the States act in accordance with their obligations to respect and to ensure human rights. 53. The Inter-American Court has established that the principle of subsidiarity crosscuts the inter-American human rights system, which, as stated in the Preamble of the American Convention, “reinforc[es] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” 13 Therefore, it is equally applicable in the case of the adoption of provisional measures and their maintenance, because, since it is stated in the Preamble to the American Convention, it must guide the actions of the States when it is alleged that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency exists that entails a risk of irreparable damage to the individual who is the focus of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. Therefore, not only in contentious cases, but also in the case of the mechanism of provisional measures, the protection system established by the American Convention does not substitute the domestic jurisdictions, but complements them. The protection eventually granted by the Inter-American Court must be deployed not only if the elements indicated in Article 63(2) of the American Convention for the admissibility of provisional measures are present, but also taking into account the actions of the State within the domestic jurisdiction. Thus, although on previous occasions when it has considered it admissible to lift the provisional measures ordered, this Court has analyzed the elements mentioned in order to maintain this type of measures in Article 63(2) of the American Convention, the Court has also paid special attention to the efforts made by the States to respond to the situation of extreme gravity and urgency and of irreparable danger, in which the beneficiaries of the measure found themselves. 14 54. Based on the above, if the Court verifies that the State concerned has implemented protection mechanisms or actions for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, the Court may decide to lift these measures depositing the obligation of protection on the entity primarily responsible for this; namely, the State. 15 When the Court lifts the provisional measures on this basis, it corresponds to the State, in keeping with its obligation to E.C.H.R., Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" v. Belgium (merits), Application No. 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64, Judgment of 23 July 1968, para. 10, and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Preamble and Article 51(1). 13 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 142, and Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61. 14 Thus, for example, in the Matter of the Mendoza Prisons with regard to Argentina and in the Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People with regard to Colombia. Cf. Matter of the Mendoza Prisons. Provisional measures with regard to Argentina. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2010, and Matter of the Kankuamo Indigenous People. Provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2011. 15 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of October 25, 2012, twenty-fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Provisional measures with regard to Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 6, 2009, twenty-first considering paragraph. 23