6 The General Assembly made no comments on the matter. 7. The question at hand is: how is this situation possible if the OAS Charter Chapter II, Principles, Article 3(L), provides that “The American States proclaim the fundamental rights of the individual without distinction as to race, nationality, creed, or sex”?7 Moreover, the Heads of State and Government of the Americas, in the Declaration of Quebec City of 2001,8 stated that their “commitment to full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is based on shared principles and convictions” and, as repeatedly stated by the General Assembly, supported: “the commitment […] to continue strengthening and improving the InterAmerican human rights system, in particular the functioning of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.”9 8. Furthermore, it is also worth asking why Article 65 of the American Convention, which sets forth the Court’s obligation to report to the OAS General Assembly on noncompliance with judgments, does not contemplate a procedure or agency within the Organization in charge of implementing such provision? 9. The relevance of these questions is even clearer if we consider that, as mentioned before, the text of the American Convention was largely inspired in the [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, Article 46 of which provides as follows: Binding force and execution of judgments 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2 The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution. However, the text of Article 65 of the American Convention, on the other hand, only states: To each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States the Court shall submit, for the Assembly's consideration, a report on its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent recommendations. A comparison of both texts shows that in the European system of human rights there is a political collegiate body, the Committee of Ministers, that is in charge of monitoring the enforcement of judgments; while the Inter-American system has no similar body, for which reason the Court, in the exercise of powers inherent to its 7 OAS Charter, signed in Bogotá in 1948, amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires in 1967, the Protocol of Cartagena de Indias in 1985, the Protocol of Washington in 1992, and the Protocol of Managua in 1993. 8 9 Third Summit of the Americas, Declaration of Quebec City, April 20-22, 2001. OEA AG/RES. 1925 (XXXIII-O/03) “Strengthening of Human Rights Systems Pursuant to the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of the Americas”, Resolution adopted at the Fourth Plenary Session, held on June 10, 2003.