It is also appropriate to note that from the above, it can be logically gathered that since the judgment on merits is the "final" and "non-appealable" “decision” that after hearing and ruling on the relevant case, it resolves it in its entirety or completely and in a sole and ultimate instance, the Court can no longer hear or rule on it. The ruling is the result, thus, of the consideration that the Court took regarding the case, i.e., the prosecution it makes "relating to the interpretation and application" of the Convention. Therefore, following the ruling it ceases to hear or rule on the case, and therefore the circumstances provided for in Article 63(2) are not present in order to proceed with provisional measures, i.e., that it concerns "matters that [Court] is hearing" or ruling on. But, in addition, this ruling is res judicata in nature,27 it can no longer be altered, and it is also definitive for the Court; therefore, it cannot be replaced or devalued by provisional measures or create the risk that such eventualities may occur, which could happen if the measures ordered before the judgment continued to have effect, or if after the ruling new, measures were enacted. If this is the case, such measures would not only be "provisional"28 but it could also imply the violation of the principle of "res judicata," i.e., that the case be re-examined. As a result, the pertinent conventional rules set forth that, after the issuance of a judgment, the Court may take, in the relevant contentious case, only two actions: one that is procedural, and another that is administrative but that can become procedural. Firstly, it may interpret the judgment, if necessary.29 And, secondly, submit an annual report to the OAS General Assembly on the States that have not complied with their judgments.30 At the same time, and in this case, the Statute of the Court refers only to the aforementioned OAS General Assembly report,31 and in turn, the Rules of Procedure of the Court govern the judgment on reparations and costs,32 recourse for interpretation,33 the monitoring of compliance with judgments and other decisions made by the Court,34 and rectify any obvious mistakes, clerical errors or calculation errors.35 All these matters, except the latter, are, incidentally, addressed in the Rules of Procedure as part of Title II "Procedure" and before the start of Title III "Advisory opinions." Considering, therefore, the principle of public law that you can only do what the rule orders, the aforementioned actions are the only actions the Court may undertake in a 27 Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: " t[]he decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.." 28 In the case of the International Court of Justice, Article 41(2) of its Statute refers more directly to the provisional nature of the measures: "pending the final decision, notice of the measures suggested shall forthwith be given to the parties and to the Security Council." 29 Art. 67 of the Convention. 30 Art. 65 of the Convention. 31 Art. 30 of the Statue of the Court. 32 Art.66 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 33 Art.68 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 34 Art.69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 35 Art.76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 7