-33137. Therefore, State responsibility under the Convention can only be found at the international level after the State has had the opportunity to find, if applicable, a violation of a right and to repair the harm caused by its own means. This is the principle of complementarity (or subsidiarity) that transversely informs the Inter-American System of Human Rights, which is, as expressed in the Preamble to the American Convention, “reinforcing and complementary to the protection offered by the domestic order of the American States.” Thus, the State “is the principal guarantor of human rights and that, as a consequence, 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 of Human Rights; since it derives from the ancillary nature of the international system in relation to local systems for the protection of human rights.”129 This subsidiary nature of the international jurisdiction means that the system of protection established by the American Convention on Human Rights is not a substitute for the national jurisdictions, but rather it complements them. 138. The Court notes that, as has been pointed out (supra para. 2(a)), the initial petition was filed before the Commission on January 22, 1996, approximately four months after the archiving of the case by the Criminal Court (supra para. 59), when the State had not yet tried the person responsible for the incident nor had it repaired the alleged victims. On June 3, 2013, the Commission submitted the case to the Court (supra para. 2(e)); that is, more than 17 years after the filing of the initial petition. 139. While the case was before the Commission, the criminal proceedings were reopened, the facts investigated, the person responsible tried and convicted and the victims repaired by the Peruvian authorities. The Commission, in its brief of submission, recognized that this implied that the alleged violations of the rights to life and personal integrity had been “partially remedied.” However, in its final observations at the public hearing, it indicated that it had realized “the need to submit to the Inter-American Court a case the resolution of which was not complete and that it did not require a major effort by the State,” because, inter alia, of “the need to obtain justice due to the failure to comply with the recommendations by Peru” and because “the State indicated that it would not comply with the recommendation” and also “at the express request of the victims and their family members.” 140. The evidence in the record shows that the agencies of the administration of criminal justice in Peru effectively investigated, tried and convicted the accused and punctually repaired the next of kin of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, as well as Mr. Bejarano Laura. Therefore, in the specific circumstances of this case and bearing in mind the terms of the American Convention, the Court considers that, in application of the principle of complementarity, it is not necessary to analyze the alleged violations of the rights to life and to personal integrity. 141. Therefore, the Court will not rule on the State’s international responsibility for the alleged violations of Article 4(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ms. Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Pérez Chávez, and of Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Bejarano Laura. VIII-3. RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF ZULEMA TARAZONA Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66 and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 142. 129