14 but rather a discrepancy regarding the criteria with said action. Based on the aforementioned, the Court considers that the State’s argument does not constitute a preliminary objection. 31. On the other hand, in regard to the lack of the procedural interest of the Commission and the representatives due to the various initiatives adopted by Brazil in the domestic forum, following its jurisprudence,35 this Court reiterates that the international responsibility of the State is generated immediately after the illicit act takes places, pursuant to international law, and that the desire to remedy said act at a domestic level does not prevent the Commission or the Court from knowing the case. Namely, in conformity with the Preamble of the American Convention, the international protection of a conventional nature “reinforces or complements the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” As a consequence, when it is argued that the State did not fully comply with the obligation to repair a violation of the rights recognized in the American Convention, it corresponds to the Court to exercise its jurisdiction regarding the illicit act, when and if the conventional procedural requirements are met, such as, to eventually declare the violations that may correspond and order the appropriate reparations pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers that the actions that the State indicates it has adopted to repair the alleged violations committed in the present case or to avoid their repetition, may be relevant for the Court’s analysis of the merits of the case and, eventually, the possible reparations to be ordered, but they do not have an effect on the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction to hear the case. Based on the abovementioned, the Court dismisses the State’s preliminary objection. C. Lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies 1. Arguments of the parties 32. The State maintained that the Commission “refrained from properly assessing [the] issues [regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies] while the case was [before] it, and subsequently, when it made the decision to send it to the Court.” It reminded that the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies impedes an international complaint from being filed before the alleged victim has exhausted all the domestic remedies made available by the domestic legal system of the allegedly responsible State. The protection provided by the international organs has a subsidiary nature, and the purpose of an international instance is not to revise or reform the domestic judgment, but rather to assess that said ruling is in conformity with international regulations. Given the State’s obligations to offer protection and effective judicial remedies, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, it corresponds to the victims to use all the domestic remedies available before turning to the Inter-American System. Therefore, the Court cannot disregard said norm, given that doing the contrary “would remove the assurance that the [S]ystem functions properly, […] placing its credibility and existence at risk.” 33. In addition, the State noted that the representatives had not exhausted the following domestic remedies: a) the Non-compliance Action of Fundamental Principle No. 153, wherein it was requested that the amnesty granted by the Law No. 6.683/79 would not extend to common crimes carried out by repression agents against political opponents; b) the Ordinary Action No. 82.00.024682-5, 35 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 75; Case of Bayarri, supra note 33, para. 19, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009, Series C No. 204, para. 30.