analyzed by the Court when examining the presumed violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.” 44 61. Similarly, in the case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama 45 for example, the Court considered that: “19. Based on the above, the arguments of the parties and the evidence provided in these proceedings, the Court observes that the State’s arguments on the alleged inexistence of an unwarranted delay in the investigations and proceedings opened in the domestic jurisdiction relate to issues concerning the merits of the case, because they contest the arguments regarding the presumed violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. Moreover, the Court finds that it has no cause to re-examine the InterAmerican Commission’s reasoning when it decided on the admissibility of this case” 46 (underlining added). 62. Although the rule of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies is in the interests of the State, it also represents a right of the individuals that simple and prompt remedies exist that protect their fundamental rights, as established in Article 25 of the American Convention, to ensure that these remedies are truly effective to remedy violations in the domestic sphere and to avoid the involvement of the organs of the inter-American system. 47 63. In this regard, it should be recalled, as established by the Inter-American Court, that the State “is the main guarantor of the human rights of the individual, so that if an act occurs that violates these rights, it is the State itself that has the duty to resolve the matter at the domestic level […], before having to respond before international organs, such as the inter-American system, and this stems from the subsidiary nature of the international proceedings in relation to the national systems of human rights guarantees.” 48 These ideas have also recently become case law under the concept that all the authorities and organs of a State Party to the Convention have the obligation to exercise “control of conformity with the Convention.” 49 64. In sum, if the precedent that is being created by what in the Judgment is called the “early stage” of the proceedings is taken literally, it could have a negative effect on the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, because, in many matters being processed before the Commission, or even in cases before the Court, this would mean admitting the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, without examining the merits of the case; and this is contrary to the direction in which the InterAmerican Court’s case law has been evolving since its first cases, to the detriment of the right of access to justice. 44 Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, Para. 45. 45 Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186 46 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 141, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of 6 May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 44. 47 Similarly, see the concurring opinion of Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot to the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, of January 14, 2014, especially paras. 24 to 26, and with regard to the dimensions of Article 25 of the Pact of San José, paras. 30 to 125 of that opinion. 48 Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66. 49 Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 142. 15