11 of the American Convention establishes clearly that only the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS”) has the function of monitoring compliance with the judgments of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. This norm only establishes obligations of the Court and does not establish any obligation for the States Parties, neither does it grant rights to the Court nor competence to monitor compliance with its judgments; c) Moreover, when developing Article 65 of the Convention and referring to the competence and functions of the Court, the Statute of the Court does not anticipate or authorize a monitoring function for the Court. Article 30 of the Statute reiterates the provisions of Article 65 of the Convention, and the second part “is perhaps even more indicative of the jurisdictional limitations of the Court,” since it establishes that the Court may only “submit to the OAS General Assembly proposals or recommendations [...] insofar as they concern the work of the Court.” It is not possible for the Court, through its constant practice, to extend unilaterally its jurisdictional function to create a monitoring function with regard to its judgments, counter to the provisions of the Convention and its Statute, instead of submitting to the OAS General Assembly its “proposals and recommendations” on “improvements [...] insofar as they concern the work of the Court.” Neither can the Court create this function under criteria of its “compétence de la compétence”; d) Article 65 of the Convention “is in keeping with the provisions of the juridical instruments that, for decades, have served as a foundation for the other international courts.” In this respect, Article 94(2) of the Charter of the United Nations recognizes expressly that the function of monitoring the judgments of the International Court of Justice is the responsibility of the United Nations Security Council and not of this tribunal. The International Court of Justice has never tried to monitor compliance with its judgments, because it recognizes that this function is the exclusive competence of the Security Council. The European Convention on Human Rights grants the function of monitoring compliance with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to the Committee of Ministers. “The European Court of Human Rights has never interfered in the monitoring function of the Committee of Minister”; e) It is not possible to consider jurisprudential practice “a practice as recent as that of the Court, which has only had fourteen (14) years’ experience in the matter”; f) “Since it has been created by the Court itself, in accordance with Article 2 of the Statute of the Court, the said monitoring function has no legal authority in the provisions of the American Convention”; g) The annual report that the Court must present to the OAS General Assembly should refer specifically to the annual work of the Court, but not to the work of the States Parties in the contentious cases; h) The Court may invite the parties in a case to provide, on a voluntary basis, the information that it considers necessary to facilitate implementation of the administrative functions authorized and required in Articles 65 of the Convention and 30 of the Statute of the Court; namely, the obligation to