-19or confirmation. The foregoing is based on the principle of complementarity, which informs the inter-American human rights system across the board, which is, as expressed in the Preamble of the American Convention, “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.”104 74. The complementary nature of international jurisdiction means that the system of protection established by the American Convention does not replace national jurisdictions, but rather complements them.105 This means that the State is the main guarantor of people's human rights, and therefore, if there is an act that violates said rights, it is the State that must resolve the matter domestically and, if applicable, make reparations, before having to respond to international bodies.106 75. The above means that, in the inter-American system, a dynamic and complementary control of the States’ treaty-based obligations to respect and ensure human rights has been established between the domestic authorities (who have the primary obligation) and the international instances (complementarily), so that their decision criteria can be established and harmonized.107 Thus, the Court’s case law includes cases in which decisions of domestic courts have been examined in order to approach and to found the violation of the Convention in the specific case;108 in other cases, it has been recognized that, in keeping with their international obligations, the domestic organs, instances and courts have adopted adequate measures to redress the situation that gave rise to the case,109 and have settled the alleged violation,110 ordered reasonable reparations,111 or exercised an adequate control of conventionality with the Convention.112 In this sense, the Court has indicated that State responsibility under the Convention can only be demanded at the international level after the State has had the opportunity to recognize, as the Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia Merits. Judgment of December 06, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 33, and 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; Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 142; Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 01, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 159, and Case of Garcia Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015. Series C No. 306, para. 103; Case of Duque v. Colombia Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, para. 128; Case of Andrade Salmon v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of December 01, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 18, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 97. 105 Cf. Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, para. 128, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 129. 106 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, para. 66, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 129. 107 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, para. 143, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 99. 108 See for example, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, para. 143, 196, 200, 203, 206, 209, 220, 221, 225. See also, Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 167 ff., Y Case of Gelman v. Uruguay Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 124. 109 Cf. Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 139 to 141. See also, Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 06, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 32 to 24 and operative paragraph 1. 110 See for example, Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 97 to 115. 111 See for example, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 334 to 336. 112 See for example, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 239, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 31, para. 230 and ff. 104