of the Statute and, on the other, that it was established specifically in order to be able to comply with these norms. In this regard, it should be recalled that monitoring entails overseeing work carried out by others,20 so that, in this regard, the Court’s task is simply, as stipulated moreover in the Rules of Procedure,21 to obtain information, in particular by requesting reports on compliance with judgment and, “[o]nce the Tribunal has obtained all relevant information, it shall determine the state of compliance with its decisions and issue the relevant orders.” This and nothing more should be the purpose of the said regulatory mechanism and never that of avoiding or postponing fulfillment of the requirements of Articles 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 finds appropriate in relation to non-compliance with the Court’s judgments and, therefore, this should be the goal. One last observation. Undoubtedly, based on the said objective, it could also be considered that the fact that the Court informs the OAS General Assembly of the 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 judgments in the pertinent cases. In other words, it does not exclude the possibility of the Court continuing the regulatory monitoring procedure in subsequent periods and, in this event, it should indicate in its subsequent annual reports whether the said non-compliance persists and, thus, contribute to the said objective, which is that the OAS General Assembly take action on the matter if it finds it pertinent and in accordance with its powers. Eduardo Vio Grossi Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 20 Supervisar: “ejercer la inspección superior en trabajos realizados por otros,” Diccionario de la Lengua Española, Real Academia Española, 2001. 21 Art. 69. 8