14 55. In its comments (supra paras. 32 and 49) on the State’s briefs of February 27 and July 30, 2003 (supra paras. 26 and 41), the Commission indicated, inter alia, that: a) “The briefs presented by the State [...] do not constitute a detailed report on compliance with judgment in this case”; consequently it reserved the right to submit its comments on the report that Panama would subsequently present to the Court; b) “In its Order of June 6, 2003, the Court has resolved clearly most of the State’s allegations,” so that “an additional ruling of the Court concerning the final and non-appealable nature of its judgments” is not justified. Accordingly, it requested the Court “to reject outright the arguments that try to reopen a discussion on matters that [it] has already decided”; c) The observations of the State attempt to question the competence of the Court, contest the contents of its orders, and bring about their review and reconsideration. However, the recourse of review is not admissible and the judgments of the Court are final and non-appealable; d) “The presentation of arguments questioning the competence of the Court to issue orders on compliance with judgment is of no practical relevance and seeks to evade obligations acquired internationally in good faith.” Seeking to divert the attention of the Court with matters that “reveal a lack of willingness to comply” with its judgment violates the pacta sunt servanda principle; e) An international tribunal “has the competence to rule on its powers, in particular, on its competence to issue orders or resolutions”; f) The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia “decided that it had competence to issue [a specific] order or resolution, considering that this was necessary in order to comply with its fundamental purpose and to function effectively,”19 and the decision was confirmed by the court of appeal; g) The Court has competence to issue decisions on compliance with judgment, a power that “is fundamental for the exercise of its judicial functions.” The competence of the Court is unquestionable and it is reflected in its constant case law; h) “It is established by convention that the Inter-American Court, as an international tribunal, guarantees the injured party the enjoyment of his rights, which implies guaranteeing reparation of the consequences of the violations and the payment of a fair compensation.” Accordingly, it is “evident that the Court has the authority to monitor compliance with its decisions, since it would be useless and illusory that, having the competence to determine the reparations, it did not have the competence to monitor” what it has ordered. To the contrary, “the victims would be left defenseless”; 19 ICTY, Trial Chamber, BLASKIC (IT-95-14), “Lasva Valley” Decision on the Objection of the Republic of Croatia to the Issuance of Subpoenae Duces Tecum, 18 July 1997, paras. 29, 30 and 41.