24 considered by relevant authorities of the OAS, reports of non-compliance with a Court judgment are not directly known or debated by the OAS General Assembly, or by the Permanent Council or by its Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs. The latter confines itself to discussing and issuing a draft resolution for the Permanent Council, which is later submitted to the General Assembly, concerning the annual report on tne work of the Court. However, neither the specific non-compliance of the case at hand nor, consequently, the defense arguments of the State are heard or debated. 31. Undoubtedly, the best solution would be to adopt a protocol for amending the procedural provisions of the American Convention, as the Court in due time proposed. For the moment, however, failing a long-term solution, a short-term solution must be found, making it possible for the OAS appropriate authorities to debate the reports on the non-compliance with judgments pronounced by the Court, which in many cases could allow for such judgments to be promptly and fully complied with and to be closed by the Court. This would enhance the Inter-American human rights system, which erroneously appears to be ineffective as a result of the above data. (supra para. 29). 32. Even though on several occasions the Court has informed the General Assembly that it has failed to receive information from a given State concerning its compliance with a judgment or provisional measures,42 only in 1995 did the General Assembly urge a State (i.e., Suriname) to inform the Court of the fulfillment of the judgments in the cases of Aloeboetoe and Gangaram Panday (supra para. 9), which constitutes irrefutable proof of the statements in this separate opinion in the case of Caesar vs. Trinidad and Tobago, which deserves full consideration from the States Party to the American Convention. 33. In order to stop this from happening over and over again, the most immediate solution would be for the CJPA to create a permanent working group to consider the non-fulfillment reports pronounced by the Court and for its members to receive written and oral reports from the Court, the Commission and the victims’ representatives, and defense arguments or explanations the States Party may have, with a view to refer the relevant recommendations to the CJPA, to the Permanent Council and ultimately to the General Assembly. 34. Although the OAS is an essentially political entity, the great political issues i.e., those concerning the legal and political principles that gave birth to the organization 42 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1990, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.23 doc.12, pp. 15 and 16; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1991, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.25 doc.7, p. 9; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1994, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.31 doc.9, pp. 18 and 19; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1996, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.35 doc.4, p. 27; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1997, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.39 doc.5, pp. 29 and 30; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1998, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.43 doc.11, pp. 32-35; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1999, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47 doc.6, pp. 37-45; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2000, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.50 Doc.4, pp. 39-44; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2001, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.54 doc.4, pp. 46-55; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2002, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.57 doc.5, pp. 21, 25, 26, 32, 35, 45 and 46; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.61 doc.1, pp. 44-46; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2004, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.65 doc.1, pp. 24 and 25.