7 responsible for “the interpretation and application” of the Convention.38 In relation to the Court’s non-contentious or advisory jurisdiction, a member State may consult it regarding the “interpretation” of the Convention or of “other treaties concerning the protection of human rights;” or, the Court may provide that State with “opinions regarding the compatibility of any of its domestic laws with the aforesaid international instruments.” 39 For its part, the OAS General Assembly is entrusted with the task of adopting the measures deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the rulings.40 The efficacy of the Inter-American System of Human Rights depends on ensuring that each of these organs duly fulfills its role. 15. Thus, in accordance with that system, the Commission may, among other actions, make recommendations to the States Parties to the Convention, respond to their consultations, advise them and represent all member States in proceedings before the Court. To this end, it must necessarily take sides, take a stance, commit to a faction and be partial to a position, namely, that of promoting and defending human rights. That is its role. 16. By contrast, under the aforementioned system, the Court’s task is to impart justice on matters of human rights, and to do so it must be “the final interpreter of the Convention.”41 Accordingly, to fulfill that role, it must strictly protect the independence and impartiality that characterizes it, 42 especially in contentious cases that are submitted to it. Therefore, its judges must not advance or put forward an opinion that could undermine that privileged position or transform it into a promotor and defender of human rights, thereby invading the jurisdiction of the Commission. 17. Hence, it is appropriate to recall that this document responds to the circumstance that the Court, as a jurisdictional body, enjoys the broadest autonomy, 43 since there is no higher body that can oversee its conduct. This characteristic requires it to be very rigorous in the exercise of its jurisdiction, so that it does not distort its nature and, consequently, weaken the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. For this reason, the views expressed below seek to ensure d) to request the governments of the member states to supply it with information on the measures adopted by them in matters of human rights; e) to respond, through the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, to inquiries made by the member states on matters related to human rights and, within the limits of its possibilities, to provide those states with the advisory services they request; f) to take action on petitions and other communications pursuant to its authority under the provisions of Articles 44 through 51 of this Convention; and g) to submit an annual report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.” 38 Footnote 12. 39 Footnote, 19. 40 Footnote 17. Cf. Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Judgment of February 4, 2019 (Merits, reparations and costs), para. 129. 41 Article 11(1) of the Court’s Statute: “Upon assuming office, each judge shall take the following oath or make the following solemn declaration: "I swear" - or "I solemnly declare" - "that I shall exercise my functions as a judge honorably, independently and impartially and that I shall keep secret all deliberations.” 42 Article 1 of the Statute states: “The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an autonomous judicial institution whose purpose is the application and interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court exercises its functions in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned Convention and the present Statute.” 43