CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO VIO GROSSI WITH THE ORDER OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF NOVEMBER 22, 2011, CASE OF BLANCO ROMERO ET AL. V. VENEZUELA, MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT Introduction With this opinion, the undersigned concurs with the above-mentioned order (hereinafter “the order”), in the understanding that, pursuant to the pertinent norms and in view of the extended and, consequently, more than prudent or reasonable time that has elapsed since the judgment was handed down in this case without the State concerned (hereinafter “the State”) complying with its fundamental requirements, the Inter-American Court of Human rights (hereinafter “the Court”) must inform the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “OAS General Assembly”) of this situation. I. The norms In this regard, Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”), establishes: “To each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States the Court shall submit, for the Assembly's consideration, a report on its work during the previous year. It shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments, making any pertinent recommendations.” For its part, Article 30 of the Statute of the Court, hereinafter the Statute, stipulates: “Report to the OAS General Assembly. The Court shall submit a report on its work of the previous year to each regular session of the OAS General Assembly. It shall indicate those cases in which a State has failed to comply with the Court's ruling. It may also submit to the OAS General Assembly proposals or recommendations on ways to improve the inter-American system of human rights, insofar as they concern the work of the Court.” As can be observed, both provisions specifically establish an obligation for the Court and not a prerogative, so that the Court cannot avoid it and, indeed, it does not. And this obligation is that, each year, the Court must submit a report on its work of the previous year to the OAS General Assembly. The verb form used in the two articles transcribed above is significant in this regard, because it is the imperative; in other words, it indicates that the Court “shall submit” this report to the OAS General Assembly. Furthermore, these norms establish also that this annual report must specify the cases in which a State has not complied with the Court’s judgments during the respective year. Once again, both texts use the imperative; that is, it “shall indicate/specify” such cases. Thus, this is also an obligation for the Court and not a prerogative.