CASE OF CAESAR V. TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE MANUEL E. VENTURA ROBLES The need to establish a permanent working group within the Organization of American States to monitor the compliance by the States Party to the American Convention on Human Rights with the judgments and provisional measures passed by the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. I Introduction. II The proposals submitted by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, the States of Chile and Uruguay, and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, contained in their drafts of the American Convention on Human Rights regarding the current text of Article 65 thereof. III The Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights of 1969. IV Proposed Solution submitted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the appropriate organs of the OAS regarding the implementation of Article 65 of the American Convention. V Request for interpretation of judgment in the case of Baena Ricardo et al. submitted by the State of Panama. VI Current operation of the system at the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council of the OAS, and the need for an amendment. VII Consequences of the completeness gap in the American Convention on Human Rights to render Article 65 valid. VIII Proposed solution. IX Conclusions. I Introduction 1. When concurring with the opinion of my fellow judges to determine the international responsibility of the State of Trinidad and Tobago (hereinafter “the State”