4. The Inter-American Court’s verification of human rights violations by the exercise of its compulsory jurisdiction has led the Court to order, in accordance with Article 63 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or “Convention”), different types of measures aimed at satisfying the notion of full reparation. These include not only pecuniary compensation, but other types of measures addressed at restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, and non-repetition of the violations that have been verified. The implementation of the said measures entails a complex and gradual process, as previously noted, in which the whole institutional framework of the State frequently participates. This is so, because various State organs and institutions – both central or federal and at their different levels – as well as the different authorities established in the Constitution may be involved in the implementation of the measures of reparation 5. As I have indicated, owing to its complex nature this compliance process cannot be analyzed in isolation, or with an arithmetic, abstract, academic logic or with time frames that become ends in themselves, but must be examined within the diverse variables and factors involved in full compliance with a judgment of the InterAmerican Court. For example, measures relating to judicial proceedings to investigate, and eventually punish, grave human rights violations (where the rights of third parties are involved), or those that refer to law reform, or to the design and implementation of public policies, constitute complex processes in which the essential factor is to verify their overall effects and monitor them. 6. This reality does not imply, of course, that the States can use the slowness of domestic institutional processes or complex institutional bureaucracy as an excuse for failing to comply with the Court’s decisions. The Court’s experience has shown that compliance with these reparations entails a process that makes it essential for the Court to persist over time with its exhaustive monitoring of implementation of the measures of reparation ordered. The monitoring of compliance with the measures of reparation ordered in the judgments handed down by the Inter-American Court, as a sphere of competence inherent in the exercise of its jurisdictional functions, is an essential stage to ensure the practical effects of the decisions it adopts at the domestic level. Otherwise, in the absence of adequate, timely, effective and rigorous supervision, the aim of seeking comprehensive reparation could be attenuated. Consequently, it has been necessary to adopt specific procedures and appropriate mechanisms that allow the Court to exercise in a progressively more rigorous way its monitoring function – and jurisdictional obligation – in accordance with the mandate established in the American Convention, its Statute and Rules of Procedure and, at the same time, guide the States and the victims of human rights violations and make a positive contribution to full compliance with its decisions as promptly and efficiently as possible. 7. Nevertheless, Article 65 of the American Convention is clear when it orders the Court, when submitting a report on its work during the previous year to the consideration of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, to specify the cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments. This does not call for any further observations or analysis because the content of the text is evident. The important point is to underline that, to be able to comply with this mandate reliably and not renounce the Court’s function of ensuring compliance with its decisions, the stage of monitoring compliance with judgments is precisely the one that permits the InterAmerican Court to analyze the degree of compliance with its decisions on reparations and to determine the moment when, if appropriate, it should be considered that the Court’s competence is exhausted, and transfer this to the General Assembly. In this regard, it is precisely the monitoring of compliance with judgments and the efforts 3