4. Supervision of compliance of judgments by the Inter-American Court. 5. Nature, type, and amounts of the reparations. VII CONCLUSIONS 1. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights which, since the Rules of Procedure of the Court and Commission came into force in the year 2001, decided to issue, in general, in a singe judgment the preliminary objections, the merits, and the reparations, and receive in public hearings only some of the testimonies and expert statements and the rest through sworn statements (affidavits), maintains its agenda up to date, a very important achievement due to the decrease of the duration of the process before the Tribunal, as a consequence of the above. 2. The negative consequence, among so many positive ones, has been the tendency to reduce the holding of public hearings in cases of requests of interpretation of judgments and of provisional measures that, when held, have been of great usefulness in the formation of the Judge’s criteria, precisely because of the immediacy of the arguments. 3. In my opinion, the arguments of overloaded agendas or the non-existence of juridical doubts are not enough to not accept the request for a public hearing presented by a State Party, especially with regard to a matter to which the latter has given the mayor importance. 4. The solution in order for the Court to be able to go into greater detail in some of the aspects of its judgment is to have more time for its sessions and for the Judges to deliberate, in use of both their contentious and advisory function. Manuel E. Ventura Robles Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 6