monitoring judgment entails obtaining information on the latter, in order to inform the General Assembly of any eventual failure to comply with it. A more extensive version of the foregoing, taking into consideration, as I have indicated previously,17 on the one hand, that strict respect by the Court for the norms that govern it is a requirement sine qua non for the proper safeguard of human rights and, on the other hand, case law as a subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law18 and its obligatory nature only for the parties to the litigation and with regard to the case that has been decided,19 so that, consequently, it can be modified in other cases, can be found in the undersigned’s Concurring Opinions to the orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2011, Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, and of November 23, 2011, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, Monitoring compliance with judgment. Eduardo Vio Grossi Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 16 Art. 69. Dissenting Opinions with regard to the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Merits, reparations and costs. Case of Barbani et al. v. Uruguay, of October 13, 2011, III. General considerations. 18 Arts. 62(1) and 3 of the Convention and 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. 19 Arts. 63(1) of the Convention and 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. 17 2