abdicate this prerogative, as it is a duty that the Convention imposes upon the it, requiring it to exercise its functions in accordance with Article 62(3) thereof."33 This provision states that "the jurisdiction of [t]he Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction [...]." 32. In exercising its power to determine its own jurisdiction, the Court has interpreted Article 63(2) of the American Convention in the sense that at any stage of proceedings it may order provisional measures. This has enabled the Court to enact such measures, whilst monitoring compliance, even if it has already ruled on the merits, and the respective reparations have been ordered because the case continues under the Court's consideration until the State fully complies with the ruling. 33. Provisional measures, in this sense, "have taken on [...] great importance in the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, especially in the preventive aspect of the international protection of human rights. Moreover, at the present day they represent a preventative jurisdictional guarantee, and constitute one of the most rewarding aspects of the international safeguarding work of the fundamental rights of human beings."34 34. Considering the provisional measures largely "determine the effectiveness of the right to individual application at the international level,"35 which implies that the Court's decisions are implemented fully ensuring the effectiveness of the inter-American system and the protection of human rights it recognizes, the judges who subscribe this opinion reaffirm the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the sense that Article 63(2) of the American Convention grants the Court jurisdiction to order provisional measures whilst monitoring compliance with its judgments. 33 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 17, paras. 31; Case of Hilaire. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, paras. 80 and 81; Case of Benjamin et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 81, para. 71 and 72; Case of Constantine et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 71 and 72; Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 12, para. 70; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 118, para. 74; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 14, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 34. 34 Cançado Trindade, Antonio A., "Reflexiones sobre la evolución y estado actual de las medidas provisionales de protección en el derecho internacional contemporáneo," preface to the first edition by Cantor Rey, Ernesto and Rey Anaya, Ángela, supra note 27, p. XVII. XVII. 35 Cf. MacDonald, R. ST. J., “Interim measures in international law, with special reference to the European System for the Protection of Human Rights,” in Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, no. 52, 1993, p. 703. 12