case, of the regulatory mechanism of monitoring compliance with judgments without
informing the General Assembly of the OAS, in accordance with Articles 65 of the
Convention and 30 of the Statute. That is because this is not the eventuality provided
for in the treaty standards for the application of aforementioned principle. That is, the
mechanism for monitoring compliance of judgments is not a right recognized in the
Convention, but an instrument set forth in the Rules of Procedure, and not by the
Convention, nor by the State. This, in order to enable the Court to best fulfill the
obligation laid on it by Article 65 of the Convention and 30 of the Statute, before the
General Assembly of the OAS, to which the Court is, therefore, liabe to answer to in
this matter.
Finally, it would not be justifiable to argue in support of neglecting to comply with the
provisions of Article 65 of the Convention and Article 30 of the Statute, despite the
lapsing of a more than reasonable or prudent amount of time since the pronouncement
of the judgment without fulfillment, in the essential, on the part of the State. The
regulatory mechanism for monitoring compliance with judgments represents for the
State the opportunity to promote or guarantee respect for human rights, which would
not occur if it reported in the terms set forth in the abovementioned articles.
And that argument would not be justifiable, as it fails to consider, as it was described
in another opportunity,17 that the best guarantee for the respect of human rights is for
the Court to adhere strictly to the norms, especially treaty standards, which govern it.
The unrestricted adherence to “the rule of law” which is required of the States in
matters of human rights is equally, and more justifiably, expected of the Court;
especially, when one recalls that its role is to impart Justice in matters of human
rights, through the application of Law in that sphere, and not the promotion of such
rights. The latter task, being left in the hands of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights.18 Nor does the Court engage in the creation of norms that perfect the
No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as:
a) permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms
recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein;
b) restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by
virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party;
c) precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative
democracy as a form of government; or
d) excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international
acts of the same nature may have.”
17
See Note Nº 13.
18
Art. 41 of the Convention: “The main function of the Commission shall be to promote respect for and defense of
human rights. In the exercise of its mandate, it shall have the following functions and powers:
a) to develop an awareness of human rights among the peoples of America;
b) to make recommendations to the governments of the member states, when it considers such action advisable, for
the adoption of progressive measures in favor of human rights within the framework of their domestic law and
constitutional provisions as well as appropriate measures to further the observance of those rights;
c) to prepare such studies or reports as it considers advisable in the performance of its duties;
d) to request the governments of the member states to supply it with information on the measures adopted by them in
matters of human rights;
e) to respond, through the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States, to inquiries made by the
member states on matters related to human rights and, within the limits of its possibilities, to provide those states with
the advisory services they request;
7