11. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers it appropriate to refer to the failure of the State to comply with the obligation to inform the Court regarding compliance with the Judgment. As the Court has informed the General Assembly of the OAS, the power to monitor its judgments is inherent in the exercise of its jurisdictional power and its purpose is to ensure that the reparations ordered by this Court in each specific case are effectively implemented and fulfilled. 9 To achieve this objective, the Court periodically requests information from the State on the activities carried out for purposes of compliance and obtains the observations of the Commission and the representatives of the victims. Furthermore, when it deems it appropriate, it may issue orders or convene the State and the representatives of the victims to a hearing in order to monitor compliance with its decisions, and to hear the opinion of the Commission. 10 In this sense, the procedure for monitoring compliance with its own judgments and other decisions, regulated by Article 69 of its Rules of Procedure 11, is one of the most important powers of the Court for the protection of human rights, since “[t]he effective implementation of the Court’s decisions is the key element of the real exercise and effectiveness of the inter-American system without which the purpose for which it was created is rendered illusory.” 12 12. Indeed, an innovative mechanism that the Court has conducted since 2007 are the hearings on the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgments. At these hearings, the Court tries to create compromises between the parties, suggests certain alternate solutions, encourages compliance, calls attention toward non-compliance that is defined by lack of unwillingness, promotes the preparation of compliance schedules for the parties involved, and even offers its premises for the parties to hold conversations, which, on many occasions, are very difficult to arrange with the State involved. 13 Meanwhile, the parties have the opportunity to directly present their positions and reply, creating participatory spaces for dialogue and consultation with the State authorities and the victims or their representatives. 13. In this regard, this Court has had the opportunity to inform the General Assembly of the OAS that, since its implementation, very favorable results have been obtained with the hearings on the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgments, as there has been significant progress in compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. In this sense, the Court highlights that, in practice, the mechanism of holding hearings on the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgments has promoted conditions to facilitate compliance with that ordered by the Court in its judgments. To illustrate the foregoing, in the cases of Gómez Palomino and De la Cruz Flores, after repeated periods in which the State of Peru did not present information, the submission of the same was requested through Orders issued by the Court; hearings to monitor compliance with the judgments were also held. Once the foregoing process was carried out, the State reported on the progress in complying with the respective judgments. Based on such information, and the observations of the Commission and the representatives, the Court declared that certain of the operative paragraphs in each 9 Cf. Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2011, page. 13, and Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2011, page 13, and Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2012, page 13. 10 Cf. Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2010, page. 10; Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2011, page. 13, and Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2012, pages. 13, 14 and 28. 11 Cf. Rules of Procedure of the Court approved by the Inter-American Court in its LXXXV Regular Period of Sessions, held on November 16 to 28, 2009. 12 Cf. Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2010, page. 9. 13 Cf. Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2010, page. 4; Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2011, page. 28, and Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of 2012, page. 28. 6