15 described in the instant reasoned opinion in the case of Caesar v. Trinidad y Tobago, that: 90. The travaux préparatoires to the American Convention allow us to consult the wishes of the States, as regards of monitoring compliance with the judgments of the Court, when they adopted this treaty. The Draft Convention33 did not include a provision similar to current article 65. However, the Second Commission, responsible for studying and drafting the articles corresponding to the procedural part of the Draft Convention,34 proposed the text of current article 65 of the American Convention. In the report on “Organs of Protection and General Provisions” of November 21, 1969, at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights,35 the Second Commission indicated in its fifth meeting, held on November 17, 1969, that: The delegations expressed their opinion that the Court should be granted a broad competence that would enable it to be an effective instrument for the jurisdictional protection of human rights.36 In this report, when explaining the wording of the provisions of the draft treaty corresponding to the Court, the Second Commission referred to the draft of current Article 65 as follows: Article 65, which is a new provision, establishes that the Court shall submit a report to the General Assembly of the Organization, which is contemplated in Article 52 of the Charter of the Organization, reformed by the Protocol of Buenos Aires. But, the article also establishes the important concept that the Court must indicate the cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments, with the pertinent recommendations of the Court […]. 37 The Court considers that, when adopting the provisions of Article 65 of the Convention, the intention of the States was to grant the Court the authority to monitor compliance with its decisions, and that the Court should be responsible for informing the OAS General Assembly, through its annual report, of the cases in which the decisions of the Court had not been complied with, because it is not possible to apply Article 65 of the Convention unless the Court monitors compliance with its decisions.38 90. 33 Draft Inter-American Convention on the Protection of Human Rights drawn by the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and approved as “working document” for the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, through Resolution of the Council of the Organization of American States, at the meeting held on October 2, 1968. Cf. OAS/Ser. K/XVI/1.2, Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, Minutes and Documents, OAS Doc. 5, September 22, 1969, pp.12-35. 34 At the first plenary session of the Inter-American Conference on Human Rights, held on November 8, 1969, it was decided to create the Second Commission. 35 The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights was adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights held in San José, Costa Rica, on November 7-22, 1969. 36 OAS/Ser. K/XVI/1.1, Doc. 71, November 21, 1969, p. 5. 37 OAS/Ser. K/XVI/1.1, Doc. 71, November 21, 1969, p. 8. 38 ICHR, Caso Baena Ricardo et al. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104 paras. 89 and 90.