16 objective of the Judgments of Interpretation, the sole aim of which is to clarify the meaning or scope of the Judgment at any of the parties’ request. 65. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court decides to dismiss the request for interpretation with regard to the request for inclusion of victims because it fails to conform to the provisions of Article 67 of the Convention and Articles 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. * * * 66. However, the Court makes clear that the State is the principal guarantor of the human rights and that, as a consequence, if a violation of said rights occurs, the State must resolve the issue in the domestic system and redress the victim before resorting to international forums such as the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights; as it derives from the ancillary nature of the international system in relation to local systems for the protection of human rights. Domestic courts and state authorities have the duty to guarantee the implementation of the American Convention at the domestic level. 67. Moreover, Court’s precedents must serve as a guide for the States in the decision-making process. Highest courts from different States have consistently taken this Court’s precedents and advisory opinions, either issued in relation to them or to other States, as a parameter to resolve cases under their jurisdiction. 11 68. Based on the foregoing and in relation to the persons whose capacity as victims this Court was unable to evidence, but who are entitled to be deemed beneficiaries of the orders of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] of February 6, 1997, November 16, 1998 and September 23, 1998, this Court finds that the State must act in compliance with the obligation established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention to respect and secure the rights protected under said treaty and take into account the Judgment rendered by the Court in the case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. Mention must be made that, in the instant case, Peru acknowledged its international responsibility for having failed to comply with said orders of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights]. * Cf. Inter alia, “Simón, Julio Héctor y otros s/ privación ilegítima de la libertad, etc.- (Case of Simón, Julio Héctor et al. on illegal deprivation of freedom, etc.) Case N° 17.768-.” Judgment 1767 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina on June 14, 2005; Ekmekdjian, Miguel A. c/ Sofovich, Gerardo y otros (Case of Ekmekdjian, Miguel A. v. Sofovich, Gerardo et al.) Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Argentina on July 7, 1992, more than 5,000 Judgment issued by the Constitutional Court of Peru on September 27, 2004; Genaro Villegas Judgment issued by the Constitutional Court of Peru on March 18, 2004; Judgment 0664/2004-R issued by the Constitutional Court of Bolivia on May 6, 2004. Case file: 2004-08469-17-RAC; Case file D-4041. Judgment C-004 of 2003 issued by the Constitutional Court of Colombia on January 30, 2003 with regard to a constitutional motion relative to Article 220, item 3 partial of Law No. 600 of the year 2000 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; Judgment T-1319/01 issued by the Seventh Chamber of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Colombia on December 7, 2001 with regard to an action seeking protection of “freedom of speech, good name and right to life”; Case No. 002-2002-CC. Ordinary courts, military courts and judiciary unit. Order Nº 0022002-CC issued by the Constitutional Court of Ecuador on February 11, 2003; Agreement and Judgment N° 939 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on September 18, 2002 with regard to a constitutional motion relative to Article 5 of Law No. 1444/99 “Ley de Transición” (Law of Transition); and Judgment No. 2313-95 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica on May 9, 1995. 11