7 jurisdiction, has had to undertake the task of monitoring compliance with its judgments, in order to verify whether there has been or not any case of noncompliance for the purpose of reporting the event to the General Assembly, pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention. A new question therefore arises because, after the report was submitted by the Court, as it happened once, the General Assembly urged the State of Suriname to provide the Court with the requested information,10 and such action later allowed to close the cases of Aloeboetoe et al. and Gangaram Panday. That is not what happened in the case of Trinidad and Tobago. The question is: does the American Convention have an evident completeness gap, specifically in the wording of Article 65? How can we redress this situation which, as we will explain below, is seriously affecting the work carried out by the Commission, the Court and the Inter-American Human Rights Protection System as a whole? The answer this question there is a call for some research on the background and preliminary drafting of the American Convention regarding Article 65. 10. My concern regarding Trinidad and Tobago's attitude towards compliance with the judgment on the merits and reparations in the Case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. and the attitude said State might assume regarding the judgment delivered by the Court in the Case of Caesar lies in that, in general, States Party have adopted an exemplary attitude regarding compliance with judgments and provisional measures. Moreover, I believe that the lack of a political forum to analyze the large number of partial compliances, in the presence of State representatives, the victims and the Commission, was precisely a circumstance that in many cases prevented progress regarding some aspects of execution of the judgments delivered by the Court. A report by the Court similar in nature to the aforementioned, will probably allow us to find solutions at a working group level and, possibly, to close those cases which have remained in the pending list for a long time, as explained below. This solution is likely to be the right way to avoid repeating the experience of the Case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al.. That precedent should not be repeated. The OAS is basically a political forum and the defense of human rights is a subject that should be dealt with by States Party courageously and openly. Dodging the discussion of these subjects prevents the Organization from fulfilling one of its main purposes, as set out in the OAS Charter. II The proposals submitted by the Inter-American Juridical Committee, the States of Chile and Uruguay, and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights contained in their drafts of the current text of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 11. The first relevant precedent of the American Convention is the “Draft Convention on Human Rights” prepared by the Inter-American Council of Jurists in 1959, upon request by the Fifth Consultative Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 10 OEA AG/Res.1330 (XXV-0/95) “Observations and Recommendations Concerning the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”, Resolution adopted by the Ninth Plenary Session, held on June 9, 1995.