37 judgments of the Court were the “exclusive [competence] of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States” (supra para. 54(a)), this political body would already have ruled in this respect, and this has not happened. It is not possible to suppose that, since 1989, the Court has been exercising a function that belongs to the maximum political body of the OAS and that the latter, knowing this, has allowed it. 111. A clear example of the position of the OAS General Assembly was its reaction when, in the 1994 Annual Report,86 the Court stated that it had not received any official communication from the State regarding compliance with the judgments in the Aloeboetoe et al. and Gangaram Panday cases, and requested it to urge the State to provide information on the status of compliance with the judgment on reparations in the Aloeboetoe et al. case and comply with the judgment of January 21, 1994, in the Gangaram Panday case. As a result of these requests, the OAS General Assembly adopted the following recommendation with regard to this Annual Report of the Court: […] 3. To urge the Government […] to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights about compliance with the judgments in the Aloeboetoe et al. and Gangaram Panday cases. […]87. 112. Previously, the Court had applied Article 65 of the Convention in the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz cases.88 Subsequently, it applied this norm in the Neira Alegría et al.,89 Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo and Castillo Petruzzi et al. 1994, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.31 doc.9, pp. 18 and 19; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1996, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.35 doc.4, p. 27; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1997, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.39 doc.5, pp. 29 and 30; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1998, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.43 Doc.11, pp. 32-35; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1999, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47 Doc.6, pp. 37-45; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2000, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.50 Doc.4, pp. 39-44; Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2001, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.54 Doc.4, pp. 46-55; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2002, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.57 Doc.5, pp. 21, 25, 26, 32, 35, 45 and 46. 86 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1994, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.31 doc.9, pp. 18 and 19. 87 Cf. AG/RES.1330 (XXV-O/95) of June 9, 1995; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1995, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.33 doc.4, p. 15. 88 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1990, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.23 doc.12, pp. 15 and 16. 89 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1997, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.39 doc.5, p. 30.