39 114. Consequently, the OAS General Assembly’s position concerning monitoring compliance with the judgments of the Court has been to consider that this supervision falls under the authority of the Court and that the latter should indicate the cases in which a State has not complied with its judgments in its annual report. 115. Thus, in the inter-American system, unlike the European system (supra paras. 86 and 87), the OAS General Assembly itself has considered that the State reports on compliance with the Court’s decisions should be submitted to the Court itself (supra para. 111). 116. Lastly, this Court considers it is important to refer to the resolutions adopted by the OAS General Assembly in 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, in which this body reiterated “that the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are final and may not be appealed and that the States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the rulings of the Court in all cases to which they are party.”97 G) ACCEPTANCE BY THE STATE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT TO MONITOR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS DECISIONS 117. In the tenth operative paragraph of its judgment of February 2, 2001, the Court “decide[d] to monitor compliance with [the] judgment.” On May 11, June 6, June 27 and September 3, 2001 and on February 20 and May 10, 2002, the State presented various briefs (supra para. 4), in which it provided information on the measures taken to execute the judgment delivered by the Court. In these briefs, the State did not question the Court’s competence to monitor compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001. 118. Subsequently, on June 21, 2002, the Court issued the first order on compliance with judgment in this case, requesting the State to present to the Court by August 15, 2002, at the latest, a detailed report on compliance with the reparations ordered in the sixth, seventh and ninth operative paragraphs of the judgment of February 2, 2001 (supra para. 12). On August 16, 2002, the State submitted the report on compliance with judgment requested by the Court in its Order of June 21, 2002 (supra para. 13). In this report, the State did not question the competence of the Court to monitor compliance with the judgment. Added to this, on June 28, September 23 and November 8, 2002 (supra para. 14), Panama presented information on compliance with the sixth and ninth operative paragraphs of the judgment of February 2, 2001, and in these briefs it abstained from any questioning of the competence of the Court to monitor compliance with the judgment. be understood to have been uninterrupted since its deposit with the OAS General Secretariat on January 21, 1981. […] 97 AG/RES. 1918 (XXXIII-O/03) of June 10, 2003, Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, third operative paragraph; and cf. AG/RES. 1850 (XXXII-O/02) of June 4, 2002, Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, second operative paragraph; AG/RES. 1827 (XXXI-O/01) of June 5, 2001, Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, fourth operative paragraph; and AG/RES. 1716 (XXX-O/00) of June 5, 2000, Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, second operative paragraph.