43 does not execute the measures of reparation ordered by the Court at the national level, this would deny the right of access to international justice. 131. The Court has the authority inherent in its jurisdictional function to monitor compliance with its decisions. The States undertake to comply with “the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties,” according to Article 68(1) of the Convention. To this end, the State must ensure implementation at the national level of the Court’s decisions in its judgments. 132. The Court has the authority inherent in its jurisdictional function to issue, at the request of a party or motu proprio, instructions for the compliance with and implementation of the measures of reparation that it has ordered, so as to comply effectively with the function of supervising genuine compliance with its decisions. The decisions issued by the Court in the procedure for monitoring compliance relate directly to the reparations ordered by the Court, so that they do not modify its judgments, but clarify their scope in light of the State’s conduct, and try to ensure that compliance and implementation of the reparations is carried out as indicated in the said decisions and so as to best protect human rights. 133. The legal grounds for the competence of the Inter-American Court to monitor compliance with its decisions are established in Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 65 of the Convention, and also in Article 30 of the Statute of the Court. The Court must exercise the authority that is inherent and non-discretional in its attributions to monitor compliance with its decisions, in order to comply with the mandate established in the said norms of the American Convention, specifically in order to comply with the provisions of Article 65 of the Convention, in order to inform the General Assembly when a State fails to comply with its decisions. 134. Monitoring compliance with the orders of the Court implies, first, that the Court requests information from the State on the activities carried out to ensure this compliance, and also to receive the comments of the Commission and the victims or their legal representatives. When the Court has this information, it can assess whether its decisions have been complied with, guide the corresponding actions of the State, and comply with its obligation to inform the General Assembly in the terms of Article 65 of the Convention. 135. The position of the OAS General Assembly on the monitoring of compliance with the judgments of the Court has been to consider that this monitoring is a function of the Court itself. 136. With regard to the instant case, this Court considers that the three orders on compliance with judgment (supra paras. 12, 21 and 37) were issued within its sphere of competence to monitor compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001, in order to obtain information that would allow it to determine the degree of compliance with this judgment and to indicate certain general guidelines that would allow resolving matters relating to execution of the measures of reparation ordered in this judgment, regarding which there was a dispute between the parties. 137. The conduct of the Panamanian State implies recognition of the Court’s authority to monitor compliance with its decisions, and the objection that the State now makes to this authority, to the detriment of the general principle of legal certainty, is inadmissible. Furthermore, the States Parties to the Convention with regard to whom the Court has issued orders on compliance with judgment have