38 cases.90 With regard to provisional measures, the Court also applied Article 65 of the Convention in the James et al. case.91 113. More recently, the Court delivered two judgments on competence in the Ivcher Bronstein and the Constitutional Court cases,92 faced with the attempted withdrawal, with immediate effect, from the acceptance of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court by the State of Peru. In addition to issuing these two judgments on competence, the Court, in a communication addressed to the OAS Secretary-General, César Gaviria Trujillo, on September 28, 1999, stated that: […] The step taken by Peru sets a serious precedent that directly affects the protection system established by the American Convention on Human Rights. Since this Court is entrusted with the defense of the totality of the system, we respectfully request that, as the depositary of the Convention, you take the measures that you consider appropriate in view of the conduct of the Peruvian State.93 Therefore, it is 1999 Annual Report, the Court exercised the authority established in Article 65 of the Convention to inform the OAS General Assembly so that it would urge the State of Peru to comply with all the judgments delivered by the Court.94 In Notes CDH-S/768 and CDH-S/788 of November 12 and 24, 2000, respectively, addressed to the OAS Secretary-General, César Gaviria Trujillo, the Court once again referred to the non-compliance with its decisions by Peru.95 The OAS General Assembly ruled in this respect when it adopted the Annual Report of the Court for 2000 in Resolution AG/RES. 1827 (XXXI-O/01).96 90 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1999, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47 Doc.6, p. 45; and 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. 41, 42, 421, 422 and 423. 91 Cf. 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. 35-37; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1999, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47 Doc.6, p. 41. 92 Ivcher Bronstein case. Competence, supra note 35; and The Constitutional Court case. Competence, supra note 35. 93 Cf. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 1999, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47 Doc.6, appendix XL, pp. 793 and 794. 94 Cf. Inter-American Court of Humanos, 1999, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47 95 Cf. Inter-American Court of Humanos, 2000, OEA/Ser.L/V/III.50 Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Doc.6, pp. 43-45. Human Rights. Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Doc.4, p. 34 and appendix XXXIV (pp. 421-423). In Legislative Resolution No. 27401 of January 18, 2001, the State “re-established fully” the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court and acknowledged the valid and executable nature of the judgments and orders issued by the Court. 96 General Assembly resolution AG/RES. 1827 (XXXI-O/01) resolved: […] 2. To acknowledge with satisfaction that on January 31, 2001, the Government of Peru deposited with the OAS General Secretariat an instrument by which it reaffirmed that the recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued by Peru on October 20, 1980, was fully in effect and binding in all senses on the Peruvian state, and that the effectiveness of that declaration of recognition should