142. The State’s responsibility under the Convention can only be required at the international level after the State has had the opportunity to declare the violation and to repair the damage caused by its own means. This is based on the principle of complementarity (subsidiarity), that crosscuts the inter-American human rights system, which – as stated in the Preamble to the American Convention – “reinforce[es] or complement[s] the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” Thus, the State “is the main guarantor of the human rights of the individual, so that, if an act that violates the said rights occurs, it is the State itself that has the obligation to decide the matter at the domestic level and, [as appropriate,] to make reparation, before having to respond before international instances, such as the inter-American system, which derives from the subsidiary nature of the international proceedings in relation to the national systems that guarantee human rights.”192 These ideas have also been incorporated in recent case law based on the opinion that all the authorities and organs of a State Party to the Convention have the obligation to ensure “control of conformity with the Convention.”193 143. The above means that 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 instance (complementarily), so that their decision criteria can be established and harmonized. 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.194 In other cases, it has been recognized that, in keeping with their international obligations, the domestic organs, instances and courts have adopted adequate measure to redress the situation that gave rise to the case,195 and have settled 192 Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006, para. 66. 193 When a State is a party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges, are subject to this treaty, which obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not lessened by the application of norms that are contrary to its object and purpose; thus, the judges and organs involved in the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio control of conformity between domestic laws and the American Convention; evidently, within the framework of their respective competences and the corresponding procedural regulations and, in this task, they must take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation that the Inter-American Court, ultimate interpreter of the American Convention, has made of it. Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 176, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 225. See also, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 193. 194 In the case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, when interpreting the right not to be forcibly displaced under Articles 4, 5 and 22 of the Convention, the Court based itself extensively on the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Colombia T/025-04. Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 167 and ff. 195 In the case of La Cantuta v. Peru, the Court analyzed whether the self-amnesty laws declared incompatible with the Convention in a previous case (Barrios Altos) continued to have effects at the domestic level. After observing that the decisions of various State organs and rulings of the Peruvian Constitutional Court were in keeping with its preceding ruling, the Court found that the State had not continued to fail to comply with Article 2 of the Convention. Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162. ‐ 41 ‐