14 protection, particularly the judgments of the Inter-American Court, including both preventive and follow-up measures. 28 V Request for the interpretation of the judgment renderedin the case of Baena Ricardo et al. filed by the State of Panama 20. By means of the written motion filed on February 27, 2003, the State of Panama challenged the power of the Court to monitor compliance with the Judgment rendered in the Case Baena Ricardo et al., on February 2, 2001, as well as the procedure employed by the Court of requiring or ordering the States to submit reports so as to be able to determine, pursuant to article 65 of the Convention, whether any non-compliance had occurred and report it to the OAS General Assembly. 21. In the aforementioned motion, the State of Panama considered “that the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment is a “post-judgment” stage that “is not included in the norms that regulate the jurisdiction and the procedure of the Court…”29 and “that does not fall within the judicial sphere of the Court, but strictly within the political sphere, which, in this case [is] exclusive to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.”30 The State of Panama also added that “Article 65 of the American Convention establishes clearly that only the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS”) has the function of monitoring compliance with the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. […] This norm only establishes obligations of the Court and does not establish any obligation for the States Party, neither does it grant rights to the Court nor competence to monitor compliance with its judgments.”31 22. Through the judgment on the issue of competence, of November 28, 2003, the Court rebutted the arguments of the State of Panama and decided it is competent to monitor compliance with its judgments, and that, in the exercise of its competence to monitor compliance with its decisions, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is authorized to request the responsible States to submit reports on the steps they have taken to implement the measures of reparation ordered by the Court, to assess the said reports, and to issue instructions and orders on compliance with its judgments.32 23. When giving the grounds of position, the Court cited article 30 of the Statute, approved by the General Assembly of the OAS held in La Paz, Bolivia, in 1979, which mainly reiterates article 65 of the American Convention, and recalled, as already 28 ICHR: “The Inter-American Human Rights Protection System on the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century”. Report: “Basis for a Draft Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Strengthen its Protection Mechanism,” (2001), Volume II, 2nd Edition, May 2003, pages 919 and 920. 29 ICHR, Case of Baena Ricardo y otros. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 53 30 Corte I.D.H., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104 para. 54(a) 31 Corte I.D.H., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104 para. 54 (b) 32 ICHR, Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104 para. 139.