23 function of monitoring compliance with its judgments. An objection or any other action of the State intended to affect the competence of the Court has no consequence, because, in all circumstances, the Court retains the compétence de la compétence, as it is master of its own jurisdiction.41 69. When ruling on its compétence de la compétence, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated that: In finding that the International Tribunal has the competence to determine its own jurisdiction, the Appeals Chamber has adopted a similar approach. It recognized that such competence is part of the incidental or inherent jurisdiction of any judicial tribunal and, in particular, ‘[i]t is a necessary component in the exercise of the judicial function and does not need to be expressly provided for in the constitutive documents … although this is often done’42. 70. The Court cannot abdicate the prerogative to determine the scope of its own jurisdiction, which is also an obligation imposed upon it by the American Convention in order to exercise its functions according to Article 62(3) thereof.43 That provision reads as follows: The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of th[e] Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration [...] or by a special agreement. 71. As the Courts has stated in its constant case law,44 acceptance of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court is a binding clause that does not admit limitations that are not included expressly in Articles 62(1) and 62(2) of the American Convention. Given the fundamental importance of this clause for the operation of the Convention’s system of protection, it cannot be subject to unanticipated limitations invoked by States Parties for reasons of domestic policy. C) EFFECTIVENESS OF DECISIONS ON REPARATIONS 18; Constantine et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 72; Benjamin et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 72; and Hilaire case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 81. 41 Cf. The Constitutional Court case. Competence, supra note 35, para. 33; Ivcher Bronstein case. Competence, supra note 35, para. 34; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 39, para. 18; Constantine et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 72; Benjamin et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 72; and Hilaire case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 81. 42 I.C.T.Y., Trail Chamber II, Decision on the Objection of the Republic of Croatia to the Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum, 18 July 1997, para. 29. 43 Cf. The Constitutional Court case. Competence, supra note 35, para. 32; Ivcher Bronstein case. Competence, supra note 35, para. 33; Constantine et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 71; Benjamin et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 71; and Hilaire case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, para. 80. 44 Cf. The Constitutional Court case. Competence, supra note 35, para. 35; Ivcher Bronstein case. Competence, supra note 35, para. 36; Constantine et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, paras. 73, 77-79; Benjamin et al. case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, paras. 73 and 77-79; and Hilaire case. Preliminary objections, supra note 39, paras. 82, 86-88.