29 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 […].61 90. 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. 91. To determine the scope of the provisions of Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3) and 65 of the American Convention, and also Article 30 of the Statute of the Court, and to comply adequately with the obligation to monitor compliance with its decisions, the Court has respected the interpretation guidelines established in the American Convention and in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as well as taking into consideration the nature of the Convention and the superior common values which inspired it. 92. According to the provisions of Article 62(1) of the Convention, the Court has jurisdiction in all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention. In the interests of greater clarity about the meaning of this provision, we should refer to the English version of this norm, which states that: A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of [the] Convention. (Emphasis added) 93. From this, it is evident that, the matters relating to the application of the Convention encompass everything related to monitoring compliance with the judgments of the Court. Its obvious that, in the issues related with the application of the Convention, is included everything referring to the monitoring of the compliance of the judgments of the Court. 94. that: Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 95. Moreover, Article 29(a) of the American Convention establishes that no provision of the Convention shall be interpreted as permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for therein. An interpretation of the American Convention that did not allow any body to monitor compliance with judgments by the responsible States would run counter to the goal and purpose of this treaty, which is the effective protection of 61 OEA/Ser. K/XVI/1.1, Doc. 71, November 21, 1969, p. 8.