Moreover, I would like to repeat that this indication must be made in the respective annual report, in those cases, such as this one, in which not only has the time granted by the judgment itself for complying with it expired, but also, an excessive time – that is, more than could be considered prudent or reasonable – has elapsed without the State having complied with its essential elements. Evidently, the Court does not fulfill this obligation by including in the annual report the list of cases subject to monitoring compliance with judgment or attaching to the report, in annex, the orders adopted to this end, because the norms transcribed above are categorical in this regard when they stipulate that the Court must “indicate/specify” the cases in which the corresponding judgment has not been complied with, and this is not accomplished by merely attaching information. II. Competence of the OAS General Assembly and of the Court. In this regard, it should be recalled that the inter-American human rights system leaves to the sphere of competence of the OAS General Assembly the adoption of the measures it finds pertinent to ensure compliance with the Court’s judgments. Hence, it understood that failure to comply with them was, essentially, a matter that falls within the competence of this political organ and not within that of the judicial organ, because it relates to compliance by a sovereign State with the commitment made under the provisions of Article 68(1) of the Convention, which establishes: “The States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” This is why the Convention assigns the Court restricted competence in the case concerned, once it has delivered judgment. Thus, 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.” In other words, only the remedy of interpretation, filed before the Court as is logical, is admissible against the Court’s judgment. For its part, the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), drafted by the Court itself1 based on the powers granted by the Statute,2 establish specific actions for the Court once it has delivered the judgment in question. Thus, in addition to communicating it,3 it can deliver the judgment on reparations and costs, if 1 2 Approved by the Court at its eighty-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. Art. 25: “Rules and Regulations … 3. The Court shall also draw up its own regulations.” 3 Art. 67: “Delivery and communication of the judgment 1. When a case is ready for judgment, the Court shall deliberate in private and approve the judgment, which shall be notified by the Secretariat to the Commission; the victims or alleged victims, or their representatives, the respondent State and, if applicable, the petitioning State …. 2