192. Lastly, the Commission and the representative argued that the mere existence of Laws 23,492 and 23,521, in view of the prohibition on applying amnesties or otherwise obstructing the prosecution and punishment of crimes against humanity, amounts to autonomous violations of the rights set forth in the American Convention. 193. The Court recalls that based on the principle of complementarity that informs the InterAmerican Human Rights System, State responsibility under the American Convention can be demanded internationally only after the State has had the opportunity to declare the violation of a right and, by its own means, redress the damage caused. 210 Likewise, review of compliance with human rights conventions is useful for applying international law—in this case, international human rights law, and specifically the American Convention and its sources, including this Court’s case law. 211 Review of compliance with human rights conventions thus constitutes a function and task of all government authorities, 212 who within the framework of their respective competences and the corresponding procedural regulations, are required to review and ensure, ex officio, that human rights are respected and guaranteed. They must block the enactment or enforcement of any laws that would violate these rights, and this in turn requires a joint interpretation of domestic law and international law in order to prioritize whatever is most favorable to the protection of rights. Proper domestic review of compliance with human rights conventions strengthens the complementarity of the inter-American system and the effectiveness of the Convention. 213 194. In this regard, this Court finds that both the judgment issued by the Supreme Court on June 14, 2005 and the 2001 rulings issued by the lower courts provided adequate review of compliance with human rights conventions, and in conjunction with the entry into force of Law No. 25,779, it was possible to reopen and launch processes aimed at investigating, prosecuting, and punishing the serious crimes committed. 214 A review of the different criminal cases filed around the facts of this case finds that the domestic courts explicitly referenced and applied the ruling in the “Simón” case, as well as other decisions issued by the Supreme Court and consistent with its reasoning. 215 Thus, the purpose of applying these ruling or other concurrent ones was, in each case: (i) to dismiss the defendants’ arguments that Law 25,779 was invalid and that therefore Laws 23,492 and 23,521 were valid; 216 (ii) to deny the pleadings of res judicata and claims that criminal action had lapsed under the statute of limitations; 217 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, par. 142; and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, par. 90. 211 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 124; Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, par. 93; and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra par. 198; and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras. Judgment of August 31, 2021. Series C No. 432, par. 45. 212 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, par. 239; Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 1, 2020. Series C No. 411, par. 99; and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, par. 45. 213 Cf. Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia, supra, par. 107; and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile, supra, par. 93. 214 The Inter-American Court has found that the "prohibition to commit crimes against humanity is a ius cogens rule, and the punishment of such crimes is obligatory pursuant to the general principles of international law." Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, par. 111 and 114; Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, par. 232. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, par. 41, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, par. 114, and Advisory Opinion OC-26/20, November 9, 2020, supra, par. 106. 215 Among others, the judgment issued by the Supreme Court on July 13, 2007, M. 2333. XLII. et al., case of “Mazzeo, Julio Lilo et al. regarding of cassation and unconstitutionality appeal” (supra footnote 37), which declared decree 1002/89, under which certain persons had been pardoned, “unconstitutional.” 216 Cf. Judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on May 31, 2011, case No. 1627 (evidence file, volume I, annex 2 to the Report on the Merits, folio 944), and Judgment issued by Court IV of the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation on February 27, 2019, case No. 2637/2004 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 17 to the answering brief, folio 14310). 217 Cf. Judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 on September 17, 2012, cases No. 1351, 1499, 1604, 1584, 1730, and 1772 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 18 to the answering brief, folio 14830), and judgment 210 51