and other decisions made by the Court, 34 and rectify any obvious mistakes, clerical errors or calculation errors.35 All these matters, except the latter, are, incidentally, addressed in the Rules of Procedure as part of Title II "Procedure" and before the start of Title III "Advisory opinions." Considering, therefore, the principle of public law that you can only do what the rule orders, the aforementioned actions are the only actions the Court may undertake in a contentious case that has already been ruled on; furthermore, they must all be exclusively addressing compliance with the respective judgment by the State concerned. III.- Lack of authority. In short, the treaty rules, statutes and regulations do not explicitly include provisional measures among the proceedings that follow the relevant judgment. There is no rule that allows the Court to proceed with provisional measures after it has ruled on the contentious case in question. Thus it would not be possible to apply to the institution of provisional measures "the theory of inherent powers" since they, by their very nature, were conceived as powers that an international organization requires to comply with the roles not provided for, however, in its base Convention or constituent Treaty 36 and thus such powers must be understood to be granted. In contrast, these powers are expressly awarded the Court, and are therefore are "explicit," they are found in Article 63(2) of the Convention and this rule must be adhered to, which is the rule that should be applied or, if appropriate, interpreted. Therefore, it is not possible that the "theory of implicit powers" principle be applied with regard to such measures, as, in contrast, occurred with the provisions in the report submitted by the Court to the OAS General Assembly, where, based on the provisions of the Convention,37 and in the Statute of the Court,38 the monitoring of compliance with judgments 39 was established in the Rules of Procedure and thus a procedural institution.40 34 Art.69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 35 Art.76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 36 Cour Internationale de Justice. Réparation des dommages subis au service des Nations Unies. Avis Consultatif du 11 avril 1949: “[d]e l'avis de la Cour, l'[O] rganisation était destinée à exercer des fonctions et à jouir de droits - et elle l'a fait - qui ne peuvent s'expliquer que si l'Organisation possède une large mesure de personnalité internationale et la capacité d'agir sur le plan international. Elle est actuellement le type le plus élevé d'organisation internationale, et elle ne pourrait répondre aux intentions de ses fondateurs si elle était dépourvue de la personnalité internationale. On doit admettre que ses Membres, en lui assignant certaines fonctions, avec les devoirs et les responsabilités qui les accompagnent, l'ont revêtue de la compétence nécessaire pour lui permettre de s'acquitter effectivement de ces fonctions.” 37 Arts. 65 and 68 of the Convention. 38 Art. 30 of the Statute of the Court 39 Art. 60 of the Convention. 40 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 100: "[T]he legal grounds for the authority of the Inter-American Court to 8