17. Moreover, the Court has stipulated that: it [h]as jurisdiction to issue, with complete authority, interpretations of all provisions of the Convention, including those of a procedural nature, and it is the most appropriate body to do so as "the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention.15 18. In exercising its jurisdiction to interpret procedural provisions of the American Convention, the Court has adopted fundamental decisions for the interAmerican system. One decision was that the Tribunal is the competent body to monitor compliance with its own judgments. Indeed, on the sole occasion that a State challenged the Court's authority to carry out such monitoring, the Court stated that: when adopting the provisions of Article 65 of the Convention, [t]he intention of the States was to grant the Court the authority to monitor compliance with its rulings, and that the Court would be responsible for informing the OAS General Assembly, through its annual report, of cases in which the decisions of the Court had not been complied with, since it is not possible to apply Article 65 of the Convention unless the Court monitors compliance with its decisions. To determine the scope of the provisions of Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 65 of the American Convention, and also Article 30 of the Statute of the Court, and to comply adequately with the obligation to monitor compliance with its decisions, the Court has respected the interpretation guidelines set forth in the American Convention and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and also took into consideration the nature and superior common values which the Convention is inspired by.16. 19. Another important decision taken by the Court concerns the alleged "withdrawal" by a State of the recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court. In various judgments issued against said State, the Court stated that: According to Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, [...] a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose […] An interpretation of the Convention done “in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in light of its object and purpose” leads this Court to the view that a State Party to the American Convention can only release itself of its obligations under the Convention by following the provisions that the treaty itself stipulates. In the instant case, under the Convention, the only avenue the State has to disengage itself from the Court’s binding contentious jurisdiction is to denounce the Convention as a whole [...]; if this happens, then the denunciation 15 Article 55 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-20/09, supra note 8, para. 18. See also Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 12, para. 124, and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 173. 16 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 1, para. 90 and 91. 6