38. Finally, in the case of Gelman v. Uruguay, the Court indicated that the democratic legitimation of certain acts or facts in a society is limited by the international norms and obligations that protect the human rights recognized in treaties such as the American Convention. Thus, even in democratic instances, a “control of conformity with the Convention’ should prevail, and this is a function and task of any public authority and not only of the Judiciary.68 39. In sum, this Court considers that the State cannot invoke a decision of a domestic court to justify its non-compliance, even when that court is the highest in the domestic legal order. Moreover, the existence of a decision at the domestic level, such as the judgment of the Supreme Court finding that the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court is unenforceable disregards the basic principles of international law on which the implementation of the American Convention is based (supra considering paragraphs 21 to 26). The manifest non-compliance expressed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice prevents the Convention from having practical effects and its application in the specific case by its ultimate interpreter. Similarly, it fails to recognize the principle of international res judicata with regard to a matter that has already been decided and annuls and renders illusory the right of access to inter-American justice for the victims of human rights violations, which perpetuates the human rights violations that were found in the judgment. Therefore, pursuant to the international law that has been democratically and sovereignly accepted by the Venezuelan State,69 it is unacceptable that, when the InterAmerican Court has delivered a judgment, domestic law or the State’s authorities attempt to make it ineffective. 5. Application of Article 65 of the American Convention in this case 40. Regarding the application of Article 65 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that, first, it must determine the degree of compliance with its decisions, in particular the reparations ordered, so as to determine whether it is appropriate to inform the General Assembly of those cases in which a State found responsible for violations of the Convention “has failed to comply with its decisions.”70 41. To this end, the Court’s Rules of Procedure regulate the request made to the State for information on the measures taken in order to comply with the judgments of the Court, as well as to obtain the observations of the Commission and of the victims or their representatives. Once the Court has this information it can assess whether its decisions have been complied with, guide the State’s actions to this end and, as appropriate, fulfill the obligation to inform the General Assembly in the terms of Article 65 of the Convention.71 42. It is pertinent to recall that the provision of sufficient information on the measures 68 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. para. 239. 69 The Court takes note of the denunciation of the American Convention presented by Venezuela, under Article 78 of the said Convention. Cf. Note of the OAS Secretary General No. OEA/2.2/81/12 of September 11, 2012. This denunciation has no effects on what has been indicated. 70 Cf. Order of the Inter-American Court “Monitoring compliance with judgments (applicability of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights) “of June 29, 2005, seventh considering paragraph. 71 Cf. Order of the Inter-American Court “Monitoring compliance with judgments (applicability of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights),” eighth considering paragraph, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction, para. 134. 16