31 require that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective […].”67 99. This opinion coincides with the case law of the Court, which has stated in its Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982, entitled The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights, that: [...] modern human rights treaties in general, and the American Convention in particular, are not multilateral treaties of the traditional type concluded to accomplish the reciprocal exchange of rights for the mutual benefit of the contracting States. Their object and purpose is the protection of the basic rights of individual human beings irrespective of their nationality, both against the State of their nationality and all other contracting States. In concluding these human rights treaties, the States can be deemed to submit themselves to a legal order within which they, for the common good, assume various obligations, not in relation to other States, but towards all individuals within their jurisdiction.68 100. The scope of the provisions of Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 65 of the American Convention, and also Article 30 of the Statute of the Court, has been interpreted by the Court in accordance with the purpose and goal of this treaty, which is the protection of human rights,69 and, pursuant to the l’effet utile principle (supra paras. 66 and 67). The legal grounds for the authority of the Inter-American Court to supervise compliance with its decisions is to be found in the said articles. When the Court decides that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by the Convention, according to Article 63.1 of the Convention, it shall rule “that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” In order to ensure that the State complies effectively with the obligation to ensure embodied in this provision of the convention, the Court must monitor full compliance with its decisions. Otherwise, they would be illusory. 101. In order to comply with the mandate established in these norms to monitor compliance with the commitment assumed by the States Parties to “comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties” (Article 68(1) of the Convention) and, in particular, to inform the OAS General Assembly of the cases in which “a State has failed to comply with the Court’s ruling”, the Court must first know the degree of compliance with its decisions. To this end, the Court must monitor that the responsible States comply effectively with the reparations ordered by the Court, before advising the OAS General Assembly that they have failed to comply with a ruling. 67 Soering v. the United Kingdom (Merits and just satisfaction), judgment of 7 July 1989, ECHR, Series A no. 161, para. 87. 68 The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 29. Similarly cf. The Constitutional Court case. Competence, supra note 35, para. 42; Ivcher Bronstein case. Competence, supra note 35, para. 43; Constantine et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 86; Benjamin et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 86; and Hilaire case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 95. 69 Supra note 62.