proper assessment of the evidence on file, the Third Chamber itself corrected these defects in decision N° 2010-00544 of May 28, 2010. 281. In this regard, the Court recalls that the principle of complementarity permeates the inter-American system of human rights, which is, as stated in the Preamble to the American Convention, “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic laws of the American states.” The State “is the principal guarantor of human rights and, consequently, if a violation of said rights occurs, the State must resolve the issue in the domestic system and, if applicable, redress the victim before resorting to international forums such as the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, which derives from the subsidiary nature of the international system vis-à-vis the domestic systems for the protection of human rights.” The aforementioned subsidiary nature of the international jurisdiction means that the system of protection established by the American Convention does not replace the national jurisdictions, but rather complements them. 402 282. Thus, in application of this principle, this Court considers that it is not appropriate to declare a violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Rafael Rojas Madrigal, in relation to Case N° 99-000136-0065-PE, in which he was convicted of the crime of using a false document to the detriment of the public interest. B.1.2. In relation to file N° 02-004656-0647-TP (embezzlement and use of a false document) 283. In the judgment issued on June 2, 2009, the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José sentenced Mr. Rojas to a five-year prison term for the crimes of embezzlement and use of a false document. 403 Mr. Rojas and his defense counsel each filed cassation appeals against this judgment. 284. On January 9, 2012, during the processing of the appeals and based on transitory provision III of Law 8837, Mr. Rojas Madrigal filed a motion requesting the conversion of his petition for a writ of reversal on cassation into a motion of appeal, stating that the enjoyment of the guarantees provided for in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention is only enhanced by the rules of an appeal. On February 20, 2012, Mr. Rojas submitted a new petition for conversion, requesting that this be referred to the court of appeals since he had requested it within the two-month period provided by law. 285. In decision No. 2012-00526 of March 22, 2012, the Third Chamber denied the petition stating that “it [did] not meet the legal requirements,” 404 since transitory provision III established that “under penalty of inadmissibility, the grievance must be specifically stated” (supra para.188). Interpreting this rule, the Third Chamber stated that “[…] the appellant must include a statement of the reasons that lead him to consider why the appeal filed against the judgment of the trial court should not be heard through the motion for cassation, but through the remedy of appeal” and that “[t]he appellant does not explain the reasons that 402 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 66, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, supra, para. 159. 403 Cf. Judgment No. 614-09 of the trial court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José of June 2, 2009, cited in Decision No. 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 22, 2012 (evidence file, folio 33695). 404 Cf. Decision No. 2012-00526 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court, of March 22, 2012. (evidence file, folio 33695). 89