169. That Court also established that: A direct relationship between the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and this Constitutional Court is revealed; a relationship which is twofold: on the one hand, reparatory, because when the fundamental right violated is interpreted in light of the decisions of the Court, the possibility of providing adequate and effective protection is optimized; and, on the other hand, preventive, because, by respecting it, the harmful institutional consequences that the adverse judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have for the legal certainty of the Peruvian State are avoided.200 170. The Argentine Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has indicated that the decisions of the Inter-American Court “are binding for the Argentine State (Art. 68(1) of the ACHR)”; consequently, the Supreme Court has established that “in principle, it must subordinate the content of its decisions to those of the said international court.”201 Also, this Supreme Court has established “that the interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights must be guided by the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” because “this is an obligatory interpretive standard for the Argentine authorities within their sphere of jurisdiction and, consequently, also for the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in order to safeguard the obligations assumed by the Argentine State under the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.”202 171. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has stated that, since the Colombian Constitution indicates that constitutional rights and obligations must be interpreted “in accordance with the international human rights treaties ratified by Colombia,” it follows “that the case law of the international courts that are responsible for interpreting those treaties constitutes a relevant hermeneutic criterion for establishing the meaning of the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights.” 203 172. In conclusion, irrespective of the legal reforms that the State must adopt (supra para. 162), judicial interpretations regarding judicial guarantees and other rights of provisional and temporary judges must be made in light of judicial independence, harmonizing them with the principles established in this Court’s case law that have been reiterated in this case. Based on control of compliance with the Convention, it must be established that the competent authority shall examine the facts that entail annulling appointments, and removing or dismissing temporary or provisional judges in a procedure in which the person concerned can exercise his or her right of defense; that the obligation to provide a reasoned decision is respected, and that access is granted to an effective remedy, guaranteeing due permanence in the post. 4. Other measures of reparation requested 173. The representatives required, as a means of reparation, that the State “refrain from taking any measure of retaliation or revenge against [the victim] or her lawyers, so that all the obligations” ordered by the Court “are complied with in good faith and in a timely manner.” 200 Cf. Judgment 00007-2007-PI/TC handed down by the Plenum of the Constitutional Court of Peru on June 19, 2007 (Callao Bar Association v. Congress of the Republic), twenty-sixth consideration. 201 Judgment delivered by the Argentine Republic Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on December 23, 2004 (file 224. XXXIX), “Espósito, Miguel Angel re. expiry of the statute of limitations on the criminal action, filed in his defense,” sixth consideration. 202 Judgment of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Mazzeo Lilo et al., remedy of cassation and unconstitutionality. M. 2333. XLII. et al., of July 13, 2007, para. 20. 203 Judgment C-010/00 delivered by the Constitutional Court of Colombia on January 19, 2000, para. 6. 51