– forming part of either the central or federal government, at any of its various levels- can become involved, as well as any of the various powers established in individual State constitutions. 5. As I have already indicated, this process of compliance – due to its complex nature cannot be analyzed in isolation, nor under a formal abstract logic; mathematically, in a context in which deadlines have become ends in themselves. Rather, it must be analyzed in light of the diverse variables and factors encompassed by full compliance with a judgment of the Intern-American Tribunal. For example, concerning judicial processes of investigation and, eventually, the punishment of grave human rights violations (where the rights of third parties are involved), or those that refer to legal reforms, or the design and implementation of public policy: it must be acknowledged that these are complex issues for which it is essential to reflect and verify the general sense of each. 6. This does not imply, of course, that States may rely on slow internal processes or complex institutional tangles to avoid complying with requirements. The Tribunal’s experience has shown that the fulfillment of reparations ordered encompasses a process in which the Court’s persistent and careful work to monitor compliance is crucial. Monitoring compliance with the reparation measures ordered in the Judgments issued by the Inter-American Court, as an area of competence inherent in the exercise of its jurisdictional function, is a phase fundamental to the achievement of the effectiveness of its rulings in the internal sphere. In another sense, the desire to find a holistic form of reparation can become diluted without adequate, timely, effective, and rigorous monitoring. For this reason, it has been necessary to adopt specific procedures and mechanisms that enable the Court to exercise, in an ever more rigorous manner, its function - and judicial duty - of supervision, in accordance with the mandate established in the American Convention, its Statute, and Rules of Procedure, while simultaneously guiding and positively contributing to the States and the victims of human rights abuses, toward prompt and full compliance. 7. Now, Article 65 of the American Convention is clear in its order to the Court to submit, before the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, a report of the work done in the preceding year, signaling the cases in which the State had failed to comply with the Court’s rulings. This does not require much commentary or analysis, as its content is straightforward The important thing to stress is that, in order to be able to seriously carry out this mandate, and not abdicate the Tribunal’s function to guarantee compliance with its decisions, it is precisely the monitoring phase which allows the Inter-American Court to analyze the degree of compliance with reparation orders, and to determine the moment, if it should arise, in which the Tribunal’s jurisdiction could be considered exhausted and transferred to the General Assembly. In this vein, monitoring compliance with judgments and the activities in this realm that the Tribunal undertakes is precisely what permits the yearly sharing of this information with the General Assembly, through the Court’s Annual Report on labors, the state of compliance with judgments, and the work that regularly takes place. 8. In this sense, the application of Article 65 of the Convention, concerning the identification and singling out of a State before the General Assembly, so that the latter may act as collective guarantor of the Inter-American system, is limited to those exceptional cases in which a particular reluctance or ignorance on the part of the State failing to comply with the Judgment has been demonstrated. This situation has arisen in specific contexts and particular circumstances throughout the history of 3