On December 8, 1999, in Atacames, province of Esmeraldas, at approximately 1:30 a.m., a group of fishermen was on the coast, carrying out their usual fishing tasks aboard the Rodach boat, owned by the Casierra family. Among the crew members were the brothers Luis Eduardo, Andrés Alejandro, and Sebastián Darlin Casierra Quiñónez, accompanied by five other people: Freddy Zambrano, Orlando Olaya, Jorge Ortiz, Eguberto Padilla, and Cristian Sosa. At a place called La Hobonera, they stopped to refuel. According to Juan Casierra Quiñónez, “...suddenly they heard a boat arriving at high speed without any identification (...). They heard some shots (...), they tried (...) to save his life. (…). Then, when they couldn't do anything but hold the boat, they found [that] it was [members of the Navy], who never took the [precaution] of saying: ‘Stop[!] Stop!, we are from the Navy' before attacking.” […] As a result of the attack against the fishermen, Luis Eduardo Casierra Quiñónez died from a bullet wound to the abdomen, Andrés Casierra Quiñónez was wounded in one of his legs, Sebastián Casierra Quiñónez was wounded in the hand and together with the other crew members they were arrested and taken to the city of Esmeraldas, accused of piracy. […] The Casierra Quiñónez family filed a private accusation before the Fifth Criminal [Judge] of Esmeraldas, who recused himself, and through an order forwarded all the proceedings to the Military Criminal Court of the Third Naval Zone of Esmeraldas. Subsequently, another private accusation was presented to the Military Criminal Judge of the Esmeraldas Naval Zone, who denied its origin, as it was unrelated to the military criminal process, for which no responsibilities or sanctions have been established. […] With this background, on June 26, 2000, the Casierra family filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the violation to which they were victims. […].86 VIII MERITS 92. The instant case concerns the alleged international responsibility of the Ecuadorian State for the death and injuries caused to the Casierra Quiñonez brothers as part of an “anti-crime operation” carried out by agents of the National Navy, and due to the lack of an adequate investigation, sanction, and reparation for such acts. To analyze the merits, the Court will proceed in the following order: a) rights to life and humane treatment, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee rights and to adopt provisions of domestic law, and alleged violation of the right to private property; b) rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights, and c) right to humane treatment of the next of kin of Luis Eduardo Casierra Quiñonez, in relation to the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights. 93. Before making this analysis, the Court notes that Ecuador argued, based on the "principle of subsidiarity,” that no international crime is present here, given the "effort" that it has made in the "investigation, documentation, recognition, and comprehensive reparations to the alleged victims,” through the work carried out by the Truth Commission and other domestic mechanisms. In relation to the State's argument, this Court has indicated that the complementary nature of international jurisdiction means that the system of protection established under the American Convention does not replace national jurisdictions, but rather complements them.87 This means that the State is the main guarantor of people's human rights, and therefore, if there is an act that violates said rights, it is the State that must resolve the matter domestically and, if applicable, make reparations, before having to respond to international bodies.88 In this regard, first of all, the Court confirms that the alleged victims have not received reparations at the domestic level. Secondly, the State does not present Cf. Truth Commission Report. Volume IV: case reports, period 1989-2008. Ecuador, 2010, pp. 122 to 125 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 7 to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 3942 to 3945). 86 Cf. Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 137, and Case of Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 01, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 138. 87 Cf. Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 137, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 138. 88 22