2 The formulation used in both articles is significant in this respect, as it is expressed in the imperative, that is, it states that the Court “shall submit” said report to the General Assembly of the OAS. The abovementioned norms establish, also, that in the annual report, the Court must indicate the cases in which a State has not complied with the decisions of the Court in the corresponding year. Again, both texts use an imperative formulation, that is, that the Court “shall indicate” those cases. We are speaking, then, of another obligation, and not another power, of the Court. And it is appropriate to reiterate that this indication must be done in the corresponding annual report in those cases, such as the one at hand, in which not only has the established deadline expired, but too much time has passed, more than what could be considered prudent or reasonable, without the State having complied with the Judgment's fundamental aspects. Obviously, this obligation is not fulfilled by the inclusion, in the annual report, of a list of the cases in proceedings for monitoring of compliance or by the attachment, as annexes, of the orders issued. This is because the norms transcribed are categorical in stating that the Court must “indicate” the cases in which the corresponding judgments have not been complied with. This is not fulfilled by the mere attachment of information. II.- Jurisdiction of the General Assembly of the OAS and of the Court. On this point, it should be recalled that the Inter-American Human Rights System gives the General Assembly of the OAS jurisdiction to adopt the measures it deems appropriate in order to achieve compliance with the judgments of the Court. It thus understood that a lack of compliance with those judgments was an issue under the competence of that political organ, and not under the competence of this judicial organ, as it relates to a sovereign State's compliance with a commitment undertaken by virtue of Article 68(1) of the Convention, which states: “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” It is for that reason that the Convention limits the Court's jurisdiction in the case before it once it has issued a judgment thereon: Indeed, Article 67 states: “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.”