17 and only then consider the case closed.” Articles 33 and 62(3) of the Convention are cited in this respect; j) There is considerable difference between the system of the American Convention and the system of the European Convention. The latter “establishes the need to grant the injured party fair satisfaction if the domestic law of the high contracting party only allows the partial elimination of the consequences of a decision or measures taken by that State that are contrary to the European Convention.” The American normative is “broader and more protective of the victim of human rights violations” and “is more assertive in terms of reparation, because it grants the Inter-American Court authority, in the cases when it determines violations of [the American C]onvention, to decide that the injured party is guaranteed the enjoyment of the right or freedom that was violated”; k) “The practical manifestation of the Court’s authority to monitor is not unique; other international instances responsible for monitoring respect for human rights have established their own mechanisms.” For example, it cited the United Nations Human Rights Committee; l) Monitoring implementation is considered essential “in order to do justice to the victims by applying corrective measures and upholding the authority of an important human rights body; m) In addition to the State obligation to protect and respect the rights embodied in the Convention, “the States are obliged to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the Convention.” The American Convention also contained the collective guarantee of the States Parties to supervise genuine compliance with the decisions of the bodies of the inter-American system. In other words, “[t]his general protection obligation or collective guarantee is in the interest of each State and all of them as a whole”; n) The collective guarantee “can be manifested through the intervention of the political organs of the Organization of American State in case of noncompliance,” pursuant to Article 65 of the Convention. However, “political control does not exclude juridical control”; o) The American Convention “establishes the Court’s authority and obligation to monitor compliance with its decision in order to repair the damage caused and to protect the victims, and part of this authority is to inform the OAS General Assembly about the conduct of the States in this respect”; and p) “It is to be hoped that the State of Panama will assume its international obligations arising from the American Convention and from having accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. Refusing to comply with the decisions [….] of this Court and questioning its authority to monitor compliance with its judgment of February 2001 jeopardizes the Panamanian State’s credibility before the international community.”