4 Accordingly, when performing its role, the Court must do so considering that it must apply and interpret a treaty in accordance with the corresponding rules of interpretation. This implies determining the will of the States Parties thereto, based on good faith, the ordinary meaning of its terms, their context and the object and purpose of the treaty, 14 all for the purpose of effectively resolving the conflict in question, that is, according to the characteristics or circumstances that it presents at the time it is submitted to the Court. In this sense, it is not a matter of what the interpreter wishes, but rather of determining the will of the States Parties to the Convention in a given situation - or what it would be, if this has not been fully addressed in the rule. A treaty should be seen as a living instrument, something that is useful and adaptable to the ever-changing social circumstances, an evolving interpretation or progressive development of international law that is achieved by applying the provisions of Article 31(3) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 15 Undoubtedly, as a judicial institution, the Court, in fulfilling its mission, “must maintain a reasonable balance between the protection of human rights, the ultimate purpose of the system, and the legal certainty and procedural equilibrium that ensure the stability and reliability of international protection.” 16 Similarly, “tolerance of ‘evident violations of the procedural rules established in the Convention (and, also, in the Rules of Procedure of the Court and of the Commission), would entail the loss of the essential authority and credibility of the organs responsible for administering the system for the protection of human rights.” 17 On the other hand, it should not be overlooked that the Court, in exercising its judicial function, should not encroach on the executive 18 or regulatory functions, 19 both of which are reserved for g) to submit an annual report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.” 14 Art. 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: “General rule of interpretation. 1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes: a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty; b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty; 3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context: a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions; b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation; c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties. 4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.” 15 16 17 See preceding footnote. Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, cit., para. 37. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, cit., para. 43. American Convention, Art. 68: “1. The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties. 2. That part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the state.” Art. 65: “To each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States the Court shall submit, for the Assembly's consideration, a report on its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent recommendations.” 18 19 Convention, Art. 31: “Recognition of Other Rights. Other rights and freedoms recognized in accordance with the procedures established in Articles 76 and 77 may be included in the system of protection of this Convention;”