25 and constitute its purpose, have not formed part of its daily agenda. The Organization cannot overlook and eschew debating issues surrounding the failure by some of its Member States to comply with the pacta sunt servanda principle and with a judgment ordering reparations issued by the human rights jurisdictional body of the Organization. If the OAS is to be revitalized, it will have to address these issues and to avoid becoming a mere international cooperation agency. The development in the case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, where a State Party to a case before the Court refuses to inform the Court of the manner in which it complied with its judgment (Article 68 of the Convention), without any reaction by the political bodies of the Organization, sets a bad precedent. It is to be hoped that there will never be another case alike and that the above-mentioned State will inform the Court of the compliance with the reparations ordered in this Judgment in the case of Caesar. IX CONCLUSIONS 35. The Organization of American States is by nature a political forum, essentially designed to promote democracy and, consequently, the dignity of the human being. 36. To this end, the Inter-American human rights system was established, having among its protection organs the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The latter jurisdictional body issues judgments which are binding upon the States Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 68 thereof). 37. Although the American Convention on Human Rights was based on the [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, it failed to establish a body such as the Council of Ministers to Monitor compliance with the judgments pronounced by the Court, as the European Convention did. 38. As a result, Article 65 of the American Convention has a completeness gap that must be filled, because even though it prescribes that the Court must inform the OAS of a failure to comply with any of its judgments, it failed to establish an institutional procedure within the OAS to carry that out, and because the procedure established by the Organization does not provide the General Assembly, the Organization’s highest decision-making body, with the means either to learn about non-compliances with judgments pronounced by the Court or to make decisions concerning such noncompliance. 39. The high degree of compliance with the Court’s judgments is one of the greatest achievements of the Inter-American human rights protection system.43 However, debating the non-compliances with judgments pronounced by the Court in a permanent forum of the OAS, which could take the form of a working group, would 43 Cf. GARCÍA RAMÍREZ, SERGIO: La Jurisdicción Internacional. Derechos Humanos y la Justicia Penal, Porrúa, Mexico, 2003, pp. 126-130 and 557; and SAAVEDRA ALESSANDRI, PABLO: La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Las Reparaciones Ordenadas y el Acatamiento de los Estados, in “Los Instrumentos de Protección Regional e Internacional de los Derechos Humanos”, Seminar Proceedings, Cooperation Program on Human Rights, Mexico-European Commission, Ministry of Foreing Relations, pp. 185-220.