construction; namely, “shall indicate” such cases. It is a matter, therefore, of an obligation of the Court, and not of a right. It is worth reiterating that the identification of appropriate cases should be done in the annual report of the corresponding year. That is, cases, such as the present one, in which not only the period granted for compliance in the Judgment itself has passed, but in which an extended period of time – which is more than could be considered prudent or reasonable – has transpired, without the State having, in essence, effectively complied with the Judgment. Obviously, this obligation is not fulfilled by with the inclusion of the list of cases subjected to the monitoring of compliance with judgments in the annual report, or by the attachment of the orders adopted to that end, as the quoted norms are clear in this regard, establishing that the Court should “indicate” the cases in which the pertinent orders have not been complied with. This obligation cannot be satisfied with the mere appending of information. II.- Competence of the General Assembly of the OAS and the Court. In this matter, it should be remembered that the Inter-American system of human rights leaves the adoption of the measures deemed pertinent for the enforcement of the judgments of the Court in the jurisdiction of the General Assembly of the OAS. It is understood, then, that the lack of compliance with the Court’s judgments is more a matter of the competence of the political body and not of the judiciary, given that it is a case of a sovereign state fulfilling the commitments made under the requirements of Article 68(1) of the Convention, which provides: “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” It is for this reason that the Convention assigns limited jurisdiction to the Court in the cases in question, having once delivered its judgment. Effectively, Article 67 indicates: “The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” That is, against a ruling of the Court, only a request for legal interpretation may be lodged; such a request would, naturally, be presented before the Court. 2