13 p) It does not share “with the Court, the interpretation of its compétence de la compétence with regard to functions that are not established in its constituent juridical instruments, such as the American Convention and the Statute”; q) “The compétence de la compétence of an international tribunal refers to the jurisdictional power to decide the matter in dispute, the case before the court, and not to issue subsequent ‘decisions’ that counteract directly the res judicata effect of the judgment on merits in the case”; r) “The Court seems to imply [...] that, since it is ‘master of its jurisdiction’, that jurisdiction is not subject to objections by the States”; s) “It is a principle recognized by the American Convention that, during judicial proceedings, nothing is assumed and much less an admission by any of the parties that has not been proved, so that [the] assumption [that the States that submit instruments accepting the optional clause on obligatory jurisdiction thereby accept the Court’s right to resolve any dispute on its jurisdiction] runs very much counter to these fundamental principles”; t) Article 62(1) of the Convention refers to the competence of the Court in cases relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention. “[C]considering [the] objections [of the State] to the said ‘monitoring function’ of the Court as a case would be totally unrelated to the definition that is widely recognized in general international law, and also that of Article 62(3) of the American Convention”; u) Article 67 of the Convention indicates the three fundamental requirements for the Court to be able to consider its own judgment, “and this only to interpret it” and not to establish any other motive for which a judgment may be reconsidered by the Court; v) The Order issued by the Court on November 22, 2002, referred to “aspects that did not form part of the dispute or case that had already been decided” in the judgment of February 2, 2001; w) “Article 65 [of the Convention] is also specific when recognizing both the commitment assumed by the States Parties to the American Convention in its Article 68[, …] and the same principle of general international law that obliges States to comply with the judgments, not the orders and resolutions or any other type of ruling issued by the Court in cases to which they are parties.” Articles 66 to 69 of the Convention refer specifically to “the judgment” of the Court and no article of this treaty refers to the orders of the Court; and x) It is not possible to consider that a dispute exists from the simple reception of reports and comments, “without the formalities of any proceeding and in accordance with a proceeding that is not contemplated either in the American Convention or in the Statute of the Court.” Moreover, these juridical instruments do not establish the possibility of a dispute with regard to the implementation of measures of reparation, but disputes should arise from matters “related to the specific norms of the American Convention”.