adopted is a State obligation established by this Court,72 and the General Assembly of the Organization of American States has reiterated the need for States Parties to provide, in a timely fashion, the information requested by the Court so as to enable the Court to comply fully with its obligation to report to the General Assembly on compliance with its judgments.73 43. Therefore, and taking into account the decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declaring the Judgment of the Court unenforceable (supra para. 13) and that the State has rejected, and refused and failed to comply with the measures ordered, the Court considers it appropriate to apply Article 65 of the American Convention, which establishes: To each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States the Court shall submit, for the Assembly's consideration, a report on its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent recommendations. 44. Also, Article 30 of the Court’s Statute establishes that: The Court shall submit a report on its work of the previous year to each regular session of the OAS General Assembly. It shall indicate those cases in which a State has failed to comply with the Court's ruling. It may also submit to the OAS General Assembly proposals or recommendations on ways to improve the inter-American system of human rights, insofar as they concern the work of the Court. 45. Thus, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention and Article 30 of the Statute, the Court will incorporate this Order into its 2012 Annual Report so that it may be submitted to the consideration of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. This course of action is necessary in cases such as this, where the State’s highest court has issued a ruling indicating the frank intention of not meeting the obligation to comply with a judgment of the Court. In this situation, the American States have established a system of collective enforcement where all the States Parties must make every effort to ensure that there is no evident failure to comply with the Court’s judgments. 46. The important role of the notion of collective enforcement for the implementation of the international decisions of human rights bodies has been emphasized in other decisions issued by this Court,74 by the Human Rights Committee75 and by the European Court of Human 72 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of October 24, 2012, third considering paragraph. 73 Cf. General Assembly, Resolution AG/RES. 2587 (XL-O/10) adopted at the fourth plenary session held on June 8, 2010, and entitled “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” fourth operative paragraph. 74 In this regard, in contentious cases such as Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, La Cantuta v. Peru, and the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, the Court has applied this concept to establish that the States Parties to the Convention must collaborate with each other to eliminate the impunity of the violations committed in these cases, by the prosecution and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible. Consequently, the Court declared that the mechanism of collective enforcement established under the American Convention, together with the regional, international and universal obligations in this regard, obliged the States of the region to collaborate in good faith in this regard, either by the extradition or the prosecution on their territory of those responsible for the facts of the said cases. 75 “[E]very State party has a legal interest in the performance by every other State party of its obligations. This follows from the fact that the “rules concerning the basic rights of the human person” are erga omnes obligations and that, as indicated in the fourth preambular paragraph of the Covenant, there is a United Nations Charter obligation to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms.” General comments adopted by the Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The nature of the General 17