6 create norms that improve the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights, which corresponds, as indicated, to the States19 and, on the other hand, that it is autonomous in the exercise of its function, which obliges it to be extremely rigorous in respecting the norms that regulate it, thereby providing a guarantee of impartiality and legal certainty. Conclusion. Evidently, all the foregoing is not meant to affirm that the mechanism of monitoring compliance with judgment embodied in the Rules of Procedure is not useful or even, in certain cases, effective. Nor does it affirm that the mechanism is inappropriate or that it contradicts the provisions of the Convention or the Statute. On the contrary, what is being affirmed is that its application does not exempt the Court from complying with the obligation established in Articles 65 of the Convention and 30 of the Statute and also that it has been established precisely to enable the Court to comply with the latter. It should be recalled, in this regard, that monitoring entails “ejercer la inspección superior en trabajos realizados por otros,”20 [Note: “To observe and check over a period of time,” Oxford English Dictionary] so that, in this regard, moreover as the Rules of Procedure establish,21 the Court should simply obtain information, especially by requesting reports on compliance with judgment and “[o]nce [it] has obtained all relevant information, it shall determine the status of compliance with its decisions and issue the relevant orders.” This and nothing else, is and should be the purpose of the said regulatory mechanism and never that of avoiding or postponing compliance with the provisions of Article 65 of the Convention and 30 of the Statute. The objective of these norms is to allow the OAS General Assembly to adopt the decisions it deems appropriate in relation to failure to comply with the judgments of the Court and, consequently, this is what should be sought. One last observation. Evidently, and in view of the said purpose, it could also be considered that the fact that the Court informs the OAS General Assembly of cases in which its judgments have not been complied with within the corresponding time frame, does not preclude the Court from continuing to use the regulatory mechanism of monitoring compliance with judgment in pertinent cases. In other words, it does not exclude the possibility that the Court continue, in the following sessions, to implement (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; (f) to take action on petitions and other communications pursuant to its authority under the provisions of Articles 44 through 51 of this Convention; and (g) to submit an annual report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.” 19 See Note No. 9. 20 Diccionario de la Lengua Española, Real Academia Española, 2001 edition. 21 Art. 69.