that the Court has been making in this area that allow it to inform the General Assembly each year, in its Annual Report, on the status of compliance with its judgments, and it has done this regularly. 8. In this regard, the application of Article 65 of the Convention as regards the specific identification and singling out of a State before the General Assembly, so that the latter may act in its capacity as collective guarantor of the inter-American system, is limited to those exceptional cases in which a real reticence or refusal of the State concerned to comply with the provisions of the judgment has been verified. This situation has occurred in specific contexts and very exceptional circumstances throughout the history of the Inter-American Court. It is only when the State expressly indicates that it will not comply totally or partially with the decisions, added to the failure of all possible monitoring measures, that the Court has resorted to applying Article 65 of the American Convention and has understood that, under these circumstances, it is not necessary to continue requiring the respective State to 8 present information on compliance with the judgment in question. In my opinion, in this case, these circumstances have not been constituted yet. Diego García-Sayán Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 8 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 29, 2005. Monitoring compliance with judgments (Applicability of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights). 4