Inter-American system of promotion and protection of human rights; such a task corresponds, as has been previously stated, to the States.19 The Court is, on the other hand, an autonomous entity in the exercise of its functions, which necessitates an extremely strict adherence to the norms which regulate it, guaranteeing in this way judicial impartiality and security. Conclusion. Certainly, with all that has been noted, it is not being asserted that the mechanism for monitoring compliance with judgments enshrined in the Rules of Procedure is not useful, or even, in certain cases, effective. Neither is it being espoused that it is inappropriate or that it contradicts that which is set out in the Convention or the Statute. On the contrary, what is being affirmed is, on the one hand, that its application does not relieve the Court of its duty laid out in Article 65 of the Convention and 30 of the Statute, and on the other hand, that the mechanism has been established precisely to carry out with those duties. Note that in this regard, monitoring entails “exercising a superior’s inspection in work done by others,”20 which for the Court, corresponds simply to that provided for, among others, in the Rules of Procedure:,21 to become informed, particularly through the request for reports on compliance with judgments and “once…having all the pertinent information, it shall determine the state of compliance, and it shall emit the resolutions that it deems necessary.” That, and no other, is and ought to be the object of the regulatory mechanism, and never the evasion or delaying of the fulfillment of that ordered in Article 65 of the Convention and Article 30 of the Statute. The objective of these norms is the enabling of the General Assembly of the OAS to adopt the decisions it deems necessary with regard to noncompliance with the judgments of the Court, and to that it ought to adhere. One additional remark: Undoubtedly, in light of the objective indicated, one could estimate that the identification before the General Assembly of the OAS by the Court of those cases in which, during the preceding period, compliance with judgments has not been achieved does not preclude the exercise of the right of the Court to continue employing, in appropriate cases, the regulatory mechanism of monitoring compliance with judgments. That is to say, it does not exclude the possibility that the Court continue, in the periods that follow, with the regulatory procedure of respective supervision; an event in which it ought to indicate, in the following year’s annual report, whether the previously reported state of noncompliance persists, and, in this way, contribute to the objective mentioned above. Namely, that the General Assembly of the OAS act, if it considers it pertinent, according to its responsibilities in this matter.  f)  to  take  action  on  petitions  and  other  communications  pursuant  to  its  authority  under  the  provisions  of  Articles  44  through 51 of this Convention; and   g) to submit an annual report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.”   19 See Note Nº 9. 20 Dictionary of the Spanish Language, Real Academia Española, 2001 edition. 21 Art. 69. 8