13 Permanent Council, the confidence that the Court has in the States Party as guarantors of the American Convention and to add one brief, final comment.26 Two days later, before the CJPA, and in the framework of the dialogue on the strengthening of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, the President of the Court reiterated: Besides, a permanent working group of the CJPA, consisting of the Representatives of the States Party to the American Convention, would be in charge of the ongoing supervision of the state of compliance, by the respondent States, with the judgments and decisions of the Inter-American Court, which would submit its reports to the CJPA; on the other hand, the CJPA would report to the Permanent Council so that it could prepare its report for discussion by the General Assembly. In this way, a gap would be filled giving completeness to the law on the matter, with a mechanism to operate on a permanent basis (and not once a year at the OAS General Assembly) for supervising due compliance of the Court’s judgments by respondent states party.27 Again, on October 16, 2002, the current President of the Court at that time, Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, referred most explicitly to the matter of supervision of the execution of the Court´s judgments, before the OAS Permanent Council. He said: The faithful compliance or execution of their judgments is a legitimate concern of all international courts. For example, in the European protection system, which has a mechanism for the supervision of the execution of the judgments rendered by the European Court of Human Rights —a task of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (a body that has historically forerun the European Convention)—, this matter has always been in the Agenda of the abovementioned Council. Why the OAS does not assume its responsibility regarding such matter in our continent? More so, since, so far, there is no specific agency with a similar function. In this respect, the Inter-American Court now has a special concern regarding one aspect of the execution of its judgments: generally, the States comply with reparations consisting compensations of a pecuniary nature, but the same does not necessarily happen with respect to non-pecuniary reparations, especially regarding those requiring an effective investigation of the facts behind violations and the identification and punishment of the persons liable for such violations — indispensable steps to put an end to impunity (and to its negative consequences for the whole social fabric.) At the present time, due to the institutional deficit existing in the InterAmerican protection system in this specific area, the Inter-American Court has been supervising motu proprio the execution of its judgments, devoting one or two days of its session terms to this task. But supervision of due compliance with the Court’s judgments and decisions —in exercising this collective guarantee— is a task incumbent on all the States Party to the Convention. In my report submitted to the CJPA of the OAS on April 5, 2001, I offered proposals for ensuring constant monitoring of due compliance with all the conventional obligations that provide 26 ICHR: “The Inter-American Human Rights Protection System on the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century.” Report: “Basis for a Draft Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Strengthen its Protection Mechanism,” (2001), Volume II, 2nd Edition, May 2003, p. 664. 27 ICHR: “The Inter-American Human Rights Protection System on the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century.” Report: “Basis for a Draft Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Strengthen its Protection Mechanism,” (2001), Volume II, 2nd Edition, May 2003, p. 795.