12 indicate in the annual report to the OAS General Assembly “the cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments” and, if necessary, to make “any pertinent recommendations.” It is for the OAS General Assembly, to consider the Court’s annual report, “to evaluate the response, or lack of response, from a State that was a party in the respective case, to the Court’s invitation to provide information that helps it complete this annual report.” It is for the OAS General Assembly to adopt any actions it deems appropriate; i) The invitation that the Court sends to the States Parties by regular correspondence is different from the insistence with which it has requested the Panamanian State to submit information, by means of Orders that are presented as the result of the monitoring function that is not established in either the American Convention or the Statute of the Court. It regretted learning ex post facto about the procedure applied by the Court, which led it to issue the Orders of November 22, 2002, and June 6, 2003; j) No international tribunal similar to the Inter-American Court has tried to modify its jurisdiction alleging constant practice; k) The application of the procedure described by the Court in the seventh considering paragraph of the Order of June 6, 2003, is not covered by the principle of due process of law, because this procedure had not been incorporated previously into the Convention, or into the Statute or Rules of Procedure of the Court; l) “Regarding the nature of the “written procedure” described by the Court in the seventh point [of the Order of November 22, 2002 …,] the Panamanian State considers that it would be difficult to denominate as such a simple forwarding of reports and comments from the other party, in the absence of any type of judicial guarantees.” The said procedure does not guarantee the “basic formalities of any process, which include debates, evidence, witnesses, experts, objections, challenges and exceptions.” Moreover, it is not explained how this procedure may be exclusively in writing when Article 24 of the Statute of the Court requires that hearings be held; m) In its Orders of November 22, 2002 and June 6, 2003, the Court “in effect interpret[ed] its own judgment, unsupported by Article 67 of the American Convention,” since it “issued […] new decisions on aspects related to the merits and reparations, which had been considered in [the] judgment [of February 2, 2001].” The Orders of November 22, 2002, and June 6, 2003, “were issued by the Court in excès de pouvoir”; n) “None of the parties to the case […] requested an interpretation of the judgment of the Court within the 90 days indicated in Article 67, […] and this situation specifically impedes subsequent interpretations”; o) The State differs from the opinion expressed by the Court in the eighth considering paragraph of the Order of June 6, 2003 (supra para. 37). It finds no grounds in general international law, or in the Convention, or in the Statute of the Court for the Court’s affirmation that “all international bodies with jurisdictional functions, [...] have the authority, inherent in their attributes, to determine the scope of their orders and judgments”;