16 Besides, the Court pointed out the completeness gap existing in the American Convention as regards this issue, which is the subject matter of this reasoned opinion. The Court stated as follows: 88. The American Convention did not establish a specific body responsible for monitoring compliance with the judgments delivered by the Court, as provided for in the European Convention. When the American Convention was drafted, the model adopted by the European Convention was followed as regards of competent bodies and institutional mechanisms; however, it is clear that, when regulating the monitoring of compliance with the judgments of the Inter-American Court, it was not envisaged that the OAS General Assembly or the OAS Permanent Council would carry out a similar function to the Committee of Ministers in the European system.39 24. The absence of a specific provision in the American Convention establishing that the OAS General Assembly or the Permanent Council would have functions in this area similar to those of the Committee of Ministers of the European system, and the OAS omission to implement the application of article 65 of the American Convention, account for the events occurred in the case of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. If the Court had accepted the position of the State of Panama pursuant to which the Court cannot request the States reports and reach conclusions in order to apply article 65 of the Convention, the Court should have been obliged to merely send its judgments to the OAS General Assembly, which, depending on the interest and attitude of the respondent State in the case reported under article 65 of the Convention, could not have even issue any decision. The reason is that, currently, depending on the text adopted by the CJPA, the General Assembly may issue a decision or not regarding non-compliance with a judgment of the Court. VI Current Operation of the System within the Commission on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council of the OAS and the need of reform 25. Once the Inter-American Court has approved its annual report to the OAS General Assembly, which can include or not statements regarding non-compliance with its judgments, it forwards the report to the President of the OAS Permanent Council, and a copy is also forwarded to the General Secretary of the Assembly, so that the report be submitted to the consideration of the General Assembly. The reason for doing so is that, pursuant to article 91 (f) of the OAS Charter, the Permanent Council must: Consider the reports of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development, of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, of the Anti-American Commission on Human Rights, of the General Secretariat, of specialized agencies and conferences, and of other bodies and agencies, and present to the General Assembly any observations and recommendations it deems necessary… 39 ICHR, Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104 para. 88.