3 bodies need to participate. This is because in the implementation of reparation measures, different organs and institutions of the States – whether central or federal and at different levels- as well as the different branches established in their political constitutions can be involved. 5. As previously mentioned, due to its complex nature, this compliance process cannot be analyzed in an isolated manner or under abstract academic or mathematical logic, or by turning deadlines into objectives in and of themselves, but taking into account the different variables and factors that lead to full compliance with a Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court. For example, in relation to judicial investigation proceedings and, if applicable, the subsequent punishment of gross human rights violations (where the rights of third parties are involved), or to those reparations that require legal amendments or the design and implementation of public policies, these are complex processes in which it is essential to verify their general purpose and to follow them. 6. This reality does not imply that States can shield themselves with the slow pace of domestic institutional proceedings or complex institutional tangles in order to avoid compliance with that ordered. The Court’s experience has demonstrated that compliance with these reparations entails a process in which the Court’s persistence in the meticulous job of monitoring implementation of reparation measures ordered is of utmost importance. Monitoring compliance with the reparation measures ordered in the judgments issued by the Inter-American Court, as an area of jurisdiction inherent to its judicial function, is a fundamental stage for achieving the effet utile of its decisions in the domestic sphere. Conversely, the search for comprehensive reparation can become diluted if there is no adequate, timely, effective, and rigorous supervision. For this reason, it has become necessary to adopt specific procedures and appropriate mechanisms that allow the Court to exercise in an increasingly rigorous manner its function –and judicial duty- of monitoring in accordance with the mandate established in the American Convention, its Statute and Rules of Procedure, and at the same time, of guiding and supporting the States and the victims of human rights violations in obtaining full compliance with its orders in the most prompt and agile manner. 7. Article 65 of the American Convention is clear in ordering the Court to submit to consideration of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States a report on its work during the previous year, indicating the cases in which a State has not complied with its decisions. This does not require much commentary or analysis, as the content of this provision is evident from its text. What is important to highlight is that in order to be able to seriously comply with this mandate and to not abdicate the Court’s function of guaranteeing compliance with its decisions, the stage of monitoring compliance with the judgment allows the Inter-American Court, precisely, to assess the degree of compliance with the reparations ordered and determine the time, if applicable, when the jurisdiction of the Court may be considered exhausted and thus be transferred to the General Assembly. Similarly, the monitoring of compliance with judgments and the active work of the Court in this area allow the Tribunal, precisely, and as has been regularly done, to present before the General Assembly each year, through its Annual Report on its work, the status of compliance with its judgments. 8. In this regard, the application of Article 65 of the Convention, to the effect of specifically pointing out a State to the General Assembly so that the latter may act in its capacity as collective guarantor of the Inter-American system, is limited to those exceptional cases in which a State’s effective reluctance or refusal to comply with a judgment is proven. This situation has occurred in specific cases