case, of the regulatory mechanism of monitoring compliance with judgments without informing the General Assembly of the OAS, in accordance with Articles 65 of the Convention and 30 of the Statute. That is because this is not the eventuality provided for in the treaty standards for the application of aforementioned principle. That is, the mechanism for monitoring compliance of judgments is not a right recognized in the Convention, but an instrument set forth in the Rules of Procedure, and not by the Convention, nor by the State. This, in order to enable the Court to best fulfill the obligation laid on it by Article 65 of the Convention and 30 of the Statute, before the General Assembly of the OAS, to which the Court is, therefore, liabe to answer to in this matter. Finally, it would not be justifiable to argue in support of neglecting to comply with the provisions of Article 65 of the Convention and Article 30 of the Statute, despite the lapsing of a more than reasonable or prudent amount of time since the pronouncement of the judgment without fulfillment, in the essential, on the part of the State. The regulatory mechanism for monitoring compliance with judgments represents for the State the opportunity to promote or guarantee respect for human rights, which would not occur if it reported in the terms set forth in the abovementioned articles. And that argument would not be justifiable, as it fails to consider, as it was described in another opportunity,17 that the best guarantee for the respect of human rights is for the Court to adhere strictly to the norms, especially treaty standards, which govern it. The unrestricted adherence to “the rule of law” which is required of the States in matters of human rights is equally, and more justifiably, expected of the Court; especially, when one recalls that its role is to impart Justice in matters of human rights, through the application of Law in that sphere, and not the promotion of such rights. The latter task, being left in the hands of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.18 Nor does the Court engage in the creation of norms that perfect the b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; c) precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government; or d) excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have.” 17 See Note Nº 13. 18 Art. 41 of the Convention: “The main function of the Commission shall be to promote respect for and defense of human rights. In the exercise of its mandate, it shall have the following functions and powers: a) to develop an awareness of human rights among the peoples of America; b) to make recommendations to the governments of the member states, when it considers such action advisable, for the adoption of progressive measures in favor of human rights within the framework of their domestic law and constitutional provisions as well as appropriate measures to further the observance of those rights; c) to prepare such studies or reports as it considers advisable in the performance of its duties; d) to request the governments of the member states to supply it with information on the measures adopted by them in matters of human rights; e) to respond, through the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, to inquiries made by the member states on matters related to human rights and, within the limits of its possibilities, to provide those states with the advisory services they request; 7