a right, where applicable, and provide reparation for the damages ex officio.”134 The foregoing is based on the principle of complementarity, which permeates the inter-American system of human rights, which is, as stated in the Preamble to the American Convention, “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic laws of the American states.” Therefore, the State “is the principal guarantor of human rights and, consequently, if a violation of said rights occurs, the State must resolve the issue in the domestic system and, if applicable, redress the victim before resorting to international forums such as the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, which derives from the subsidiary nature of the international system vis-à-vis the domestic systems for the protection of human rights.” 135 13 13 167. The aforementioned subsidiary nature of the international jurisdiction means that the system of protection established by the American Convention on Human Rights does not replace the national jurisdictions; rather, it complements them. 136 The above means that a dynamic and complementary control of the treaty-based obligations of States to respect and guarantee human rights has been established between the domestic authorities (who have the primary obligation) and the international instance (complementarily), so that their decision-making criteria can be established and harmonized. Thus, the jurisprudence of the Court includes cases in which the decisions of domestic courts have been examined in order to establish the legal grounds and determine the violation of the Convention in the specific case.137 In other cases it has been recognized that, in accordance with international obligations, the domestic bodies, instances or courts have adopted adequate measures to remedy the situation that gave rise to the case,138 have already resolved the alleged violation,139 have ordered reasonable reparations,140 or have exercised an adequate control of the treaty obligations.141 In this regard, the Court has pointed out that the responsibility of the State 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 provide reparation, by its own means, of the damages caused. 142 Consequently, the Court has established that States are not internationally responsible when they have already acknowledged having committed an international crime, have ceased the violation and have remedied the consequences of the measure or situation that caused it. 143 168. In the instant case, the Court observes that the judgment issued on June 19, 1997, by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice increased the sentence imposed on Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio from 6 to 15 years. 144 However, on May 24, 2001, Law 27454, titled “Amendment Law to Article 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure” was published in the “El Peruano” 143 F 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 Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 167. 135 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 66, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 281. 136 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 66, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 281. 137 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, paras. 143, 196, 200, 203, 206, 209, 220, 221, 225, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. 138 Cf. Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 103, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. 139 Cf. Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 103, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. 140 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, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. 141 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 239, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. 142 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 143, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. 143 Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia, supra, para. 96, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 99. 144 Cf. Judgment of June 19, 1997, of the Second Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic (evidence file, folios 365 a 368). 134 38