Rights.76 The concept of collective enforcement has also been used by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to assess non-compliance with some judgments,77 and was one of the reasons for the 2009 amendment of Article 46 of the European Convention of Human Rights to enhance the mechanisms for the execution and monitoring of the judgments by assigning new faculties to the Committee of Ministers and the European Court.78 47. In this regard, this Court has indicated that the American Convention, as well as the other human rights treaties, are applied in keeping with the notion of collective enforcement and have a special character that differentiates them from other treaties that regulate reciprocal interests between States Parties.79 This concept of collective enforcement is closely related to the practical effects of the judgments of the Inter-American Court, because the American Convention embodies a system that constitutes a real regional public order, the maintenance of which is in the interest of each and every State Party. The interest of the signatory States is the preservation of the system for the protection of human rights that they themselves have created, and if a State violates its obligation to comply with the decisions of the only jurisdictional organ in this matter, it is violating the undertaking to comply with the Court’s judgments made towards the other States. Therefore, the task of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in the case of manifest noncompliance with a judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court by one of the States, is precisely that of protecting the practical effects of the American Convention and preventing inter-American justice from becoming illusory by being at the discretion of the internal decisions of a State. 48. Lastly, the Court finds it pertinent to recall that, once it has determined the application of Articles 65 of the Convention and 30 of the Statute in cases of noncompliance with its judgments, and has advised this in its Annual Report for the consideration of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, the Court may continue requiring the State to present information on compliance with the respective judgment when it considers this pertinent. If, following the above, the respective State fails Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, eightieth session, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.7 at 225 (2004), para. 2. 76 “Unlike international treaties of the classic kind, the Convention comprises more than mere reciprocal engagements between contracting States. It creates, over and above a network of mutual, bilateral undertakings, objective obligations which, in the words of the Preamble, benefit from a ‘collective enforcement.’” ECHR, Case of Ireland v. United Kingdom (No. 5310/71), Judgment of 18 January 1978, para. 239. Similarly, ECHR, Case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (No. 46827/99 and 46951/99), Judgment of 4 February 2005, para. 100. Also, in the Case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court declared that the European Convention should be interpreted with regard “to its special character as a treaty for the collective enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. […] Thus, the object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings require that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective.” ECHR, Case of Soering v. United Kingdom (No. 14038/88), Judgment of 7 July 1989, para. 87. Similarly, ECHR, Case of İlhan v. Turkey (No. 22277/93), Judgment of 27 June 2000, para. 51; Case of Glasenapp v. Germany (No. 9228/80), Judgment of 28 August 1986, para. 48, and Case of Shamayev et al. v. Georgia and Russia (No. 36378/02), Judgment of 12 April 2005. Final, 12 October 2005, para. 302. 77 ECHR, Case of Loizidou v. Turkey, (No. 15317/89), Judgment of 23 March 1995, and Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Resolution (Res DH (2001) 80) regarding the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 July 1998 in the Case of Loizidou v. Turkey, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on June 26, 2001. 78 “The Parties to the Convention have a collective duty to preserve the Court’s authority – and thus the Convention system’s credibility and effectiveness – whenever the Committee of Ministers considers that one of the High Contracting Parties refuses, expressly or through its conduct, to comply with the Court’s final judgment in a case to which it is party.” Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Explanatory report on Protocol 14 to the European Convention. Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/194.htm (last consulted, November 23, 2012). 79 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction, para. 96. 18