41 123. Besides presenting various reports in the context of the unregulated monitoring procedure, the State requested three meeting between its representatives and members of the Court, which the latter agreed to and delegated its President and Vice President or the Secretariat to attend. These meetings were held at the seat of the Court, as follows: a) On February 25, 2002, at 8:30 a.m., a meeting was held between the President and Vice President of the Court; two Secretariat officials, and the following representatives of the State: Ambassador Virginia Burgoa Solanas, Embassy of Panama in Costa Rica; Ambassador Alfredo Castillero Hoyos, Director General of Foreign Policy of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Panama; Jaime Moreno, Vice Minister of Labor of Panama; Eduardo Quiroz, Vice Minister of Economy and Finance of Panama; Luis Enrique Martínez Cruz, Counselor of the Embassy of Panama in Costa Rica, and Doris Sosa de González, Attaché of the Embassy of Panama in Costa Rica. On this occasion, the representatives of the State manifested, inter alia, their willingness to comply with the judgment issued by the Court and provided information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment. At the request of the President, the Secretariat gave the State officials a detailed explanation of the procedure applied to monitor compliance with the Court’s decisions; b) On June 24, 2002, at 11:35 a.m., three Secretariat officials met with the following representatives of the State: Ambassador Virginia Burgoa Solanas, Embassy of Panama in Costa Rica, and Luis Enrique Martínez Cruz, Counselor of the Embassy of Panama in Costa Rica. On that occasion, the State officials consulted the Secretariat about how to comply with the judgment in the instant case. The Secretariat officials told them that it could not “give an opinion on the State’s compliance with the judgment” of February 2, 2001; and c) On February 27, 2003, a delegation of the State visited the Court to deliver a brief (supra paras. 26 and 53) on compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001. 124. Furthermore, Panama not only complied with its obligation to present reports to the Court and carry out acts that reveal its acknowledgment of the Court’s monitoring function, but also it never mentioned its disagreement about the meaning or scope of the judgment delivered in this case; specifically with regard to the Court’s competence to monitor compliance with this judgment and, accordingly, it abstained from filing a request for interpretation of judgment. 125. To this end, it should be recalled that according to Article 67 of the Convention: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. And in paragraph 213 of the judgment of February 2, 2001, the Court “reserve[d] the power to supervise the overall compliance with th[e] judgment”, and in the