responsible for informing the OAS General Assembly, through its annual report, of cases in which the decisions of the Court had not been complied with, since it is not possible to apply Article 65 of the Convention unless the Court monitors compliance with its decisions. To determine 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, and to comply adequately with the obligation to monitor compliance with its decisions, the Court has respected the interpretation guidelines set forth in the American Convention and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and also took into consideration the nature and superior common values which the Convention is inspired by.16. 19. Another important decision taken by the Court concerns the alleged "withdrawal" by a State of the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court. In various judgments issued against said State, the Court stated that: According to Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, [...] a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose […] An interpretation of the Convention done “in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose” leads this Court to the view that a State Party to the American Convention can only release itself of its obligations under the Convention by following the provisions that the treaty itself stipulates. In the instant case, under the Convention, the only avenue the State has to disengage itself from the Court’s binding contentious jurisdiction is to denounce the Convention as a whole [...]; if this happens, then the denunciation will only have effect if done in accordance with Article 78, which requires one year’s advance notice. Article 29(a) of the American Convention provides that no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted as permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for therein. Any interpretation of the Convention that allows a State Party to withdraw its recognition of the Court’s binding jurisdiction, as Peru would in the instant case, would imply suppression of the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention, it would be contrary to its object and purpose as a human rights treaty, and it would deprive all the Convention’s beneficiaries of the additional guarantee of protection of their human rights that the Convention’s jurisdictional body affords.17 20. As demonstrated above, the Inter-American Court has broadly interpreted the procedural provisions of the American Convention for the purposes of complying with its mandate as a body "with jurisdiction over matters related to compliance with the commitments entered into by States Parties to [the] [American] Convention", in accordance with Article 33 thereof. That interpretation has been executed in accordance with the norms provided for both in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as well as in the American Convention. The International Court of Justice itself has stated that "it can[not] base itself on a purely grammatical interpretation of the text. [The Court] must seek an 16 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 1, para. 90 and 91. 17 Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 38, 40 and 41. 6