domestic law of the American States,” as stated in the Preamble of the American Convention.” 115 98. The complementary nature of the international jurisdiction means that the system of protection established by the American Convention on Human Rights does not replace the national jurisdiction, but rather complements it. 116 Thus, the State “is the main guarantor of human rights and, therefore, if a violation of said rights occurs, the State must resolve the matter at the domestic level and, if necessary, make reparations to the victim before having to respond before international courts. 117 99. Therefore, it is clear that in the inter-American system, there is a dynamic and complementary control of the treaty-based obligations of the States to respect and guarantee human rights, jointly between the domestic authorities (who have the primary obligation) and the international bodies (in a complementary manner), so that their decision-making criteria and mechanisms of protection, both national and international, can be established and harmonized. 118 Thus, the jurisprudence of the Court law includes cases in which the decisions of domestic courts are used to support and conceptualize the violation of the Convention in the specific case: 119 In other cases, it has been recognized that, in accordance with international obligations, the domestic organs, agencies or courts have adopted adequate measures to remedy the situation that gave rise to the case; 120 have already resolved the alleged violation; 121 have ordered reasonable reparations; 122 or have exercised an adequate control of conventionality. 123 In this sense, the Court has pointed out that State responsibility under the Convention can only be required at the international level after the State has had an opportunity to acknowledge, if applicable, the violation of a right and to repair by its own means the damage caused. 124 Consequently, the Court has established that States are not internationally responsible when they have recognized the commission of an internationally Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 33, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 92. 116 Cf. Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 15 October 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 137, and Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 128. 117 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, Para. 66, and Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 128. 118 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, Para. 143, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, para. 93. 119 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, paras. 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 and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 124. 120 Cf. Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, para. 103. 121 Cf. Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 103. Also, see Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 140. 115 Cf. Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015. Series C No. 306, para. 103. Also see, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, paras. 334 to 336, Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru, supra, paras. 193 and 194. 122 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, 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. 314, paras. 230 and ff. 124 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 143, Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, paras. 126 to 128, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, para. 93. 123 38