-7and of the treaty-based obligations of the State, which precludes the reparation of the violations to the human rights established in the Judgments and strips the Convention of its effectiveness (effet utile) in the specific case 35. 12. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers it necessary to apply the dispositions set in Articles 65 of the American Convention 36 and 30 of its Statute 37, so that in the Annual Report 2015, that the Court will submit for consideration of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, it will indicate that Trinidad and Tobago has failed to comply during twelve years with its obligation to comply with the reparations ordered in the Judgment of 2002 in the case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. as well as with its duty to advise about the steps taken to this end; and during nine years with its obligation to comply with the reparations ordered in the Judgment of 2005 in the case of Caesar, as well as with its duty to advise about the steps taken to this end. In this situation, the American States have established a system of collective enforcement where all the States Parties must make every effort to ensure that there is no evident failure by the States with their obligation to comply with and obey the Court’s Judgments. 13. This Court has indicated that the American Convention and other human rights treaties, are applied in accordance with the notion of collective guarantee and have a special nature distinguishing them from other treaties, which regulate reciprocal interests of States Parties 38.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 the inter-American justice from becoming illusory by being at the discretion of the internal decisions of a State. 14. Once the Court has determined the application of said articles 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 will continue including said non-compliance each year when presenting its Annual Report, unless the State provides information on the adoption of the necessary measures taken to comply with the reparations ordered in the Judgment; or that the representatives of the victims or the Commission report information regarding the 35 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2013, fifteenth considering paragraph. 36 “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”. 37 “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”. 38 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 96.