92. The Commission and the Court have not only required that States abstain from committing human rights violations. They have also required States to take affirmative measures to guarantee that the individuals under their jurisdiction are able to exercise and enjoy the rights contained in the American Convention. This State duty extends to the prevention of, and response to, acts committed by private individuals.60 93. On this point, the Inter-American Court has held that: This obligation implies the duty of States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation.61 94. The European Court has held that the States have the positive obligation to establish courts with jurisdiction over labor matters in order to hear and decide cases of alleged violations against workers.62 Specifically, the Court has held that, “This is also the case for freedom of expression, of which the genuine and effective exercise does not depend merely on the State’s duty not to interfere, but may require positive measures of protection, even in the sphere of relations between individuals.” The European Court has found that in matters concerning the dismissal of workers by a private company, “The responsibility of the authorities would nevertheless be engaged if the facts complained of stemmed from a failure on their part to secure to the applicants the enjoyment of the right enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention [freedom of expression].”63 95. Similarly, the IACHR recognizes that freedom of expression governs at all times and in all types of legal relationships, including private ones, and that the State therefore has the positive obligation to protect the exercise of this right, even from attacks from private individuals. 96. Under these circumstances, the national courts play a fundamental role as guarantors of the right to freedom of expression. A complaint before the courts alleging the violation of freedom of expression by private individuals requires the courts to resolve the dispute bearing in mind the relevant human rights obligations assumed by the State. Accordingly, the courts of each State are obligated to exercise “conventionality control,” which means that at all times their judgments must be consistent with the human rights standards of the American Convention. 97. The Inter-American Court has explained that it “is aware that domestic judges and courts are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system. But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention. This forces them to see that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its purpose and that have not had any legal effects since their inception. In other words, the Judiciary must exercise a sort of ‘conventionality control’ between the domestic legal provisions which are applied to specific cases and the American Convention on Human Rights.”64 60 See, for example, Human Rights Committee, General Comment 31, Nature of the General Legal Obligation on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, May 26, 2004; I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4. 61 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 166. 62 ECHR, Schütch v. Germany. Application No. 1620/03. Judgment. 23 December 2010, para. 59. 63 ECHR, Schütch v. Germany. Application No. 1620/03. Judgment. 23 December 2010, para. 59. 64 I/A Court H.R., 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. Cfr. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel-Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, para. 225. 19