7 complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” However, as noted, in general, it is with the transfer of the petition to the State, that adversarial stage begins and the State’s ability to file preliminary objections takes effect, and the admissibility stage begins, wherein equality before the law and adequate defense must be guaranteed at all times, in particular in regard to each of the actions and subsequent briefs. 24. Now, in my understanding, the principle of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not only established as being in the interest of the State –pursuant to the line of cases rendered by the Inter-American Court since its first contentious cases--; this principle also implies, in turn, a right of the alleged victims to effective legal remedies pursuant to Article 25 of the Pact of San José designed to protect fundamental rights in domestic courts, before the international protection is activated. In this way, this procedural requirement before the Commission, while acting in the interest of the State in that it releases it from having to respond before international institutions for the protection of human rights, it also implies an obligation of the State to provide proper and adequate remedies suitable for the effective protection of the rights within national courts and in accordance with the rules of due process in the manner provided by the American Convention, inasmuch as it permits national protection of fundamental rights more promptly than that protection which may be achieved in international forums. 25. In this regard, it must be recalled, as the Inter-American Court has established, that the State “is the main guarantor of the human rights of the individual, so that, if an act that violates the said rights occurs, it is the State itself that has the obligation to decide the matter at the domestic level […], before having to respond before international instances, such as the inter-American system, which derives from the subsidiary nature of the international proceedings in relation to the national systems that guarantee human rights”25. These ideas have also been incorporated in recent case law based on the opinion that all the authorities and bodies of a State Party to the Convention have the obligation to ensure “control for conformity with the Convention.”26 26. In addition, the provision of Article 46 of the American Convention must be interpreted in accordance with Article 29(a) thereof, which establishes that “no provision” of the Pact of San José can be interpreted in the sense that it “[…]suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein.” This means that the inter-American system should be the functional and effective protector of human rights, and thus it is not reasonable to state that if the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies was reached during the course of the original proceedings before the Commission, before the adoption of Report on Admissibility, or even before the State receive the petition, once it goes before the Inter-American Court, the Court shall decide whether to fully or partially admit the case, notwithstanding the existence of alleged violations. This standard would obviously be contrary to an interpretation that is favorable in regard to the alleged victim, and thus, contrary to the principle pro persona, highlighting that the right of access to justice is at stake—in the broad sense. Similarly, a stance of this nature would lead to a lack of acknowledgment of the need for the prevalence of substantial over procedural rights. 25 Case of Avevedo Jaramillo et. al. V. Perú, Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November, 24 2006, Series C No. 157, para.66 and Concurring Opinion of of Ad Hoc Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Posiot. para. 9 Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. Mexco. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010 Series C No. 220. 26 Case of Santo Domingo Massacre V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 142.