Evidently, since this is a treaty-based norm, it ranks higher than the statutory and regulatory norms, so that the latter must be consistent with it. Accordingly, by endorsing the friendly settlement agreement, as in this case, its content becomes part of the respective judgment of the Court, which is “final and not subject to appeal” according to Article 67 de the Convention, ceasing to be an instrument agreed by the Parties in litigation to become a ruling delivered by the Court. C. The reparations and compensation The judgment of the Court must include, among other matters, as indicated in Article 65(g) and (h) of the Rules of Procedure: “the ruling on the case,” and “the decision on reparations and costs, if applicable.” Also, it should be recalled that, according to Article 66(1) of the Rules of Procedure, “When no specific ruling on reparations and costs has been made in the judgment on the merits, the Court shall set the date and determine the procedure for the deferred decision thereon.” The above signifies, therefore, that the corresponding judgment of the Court that endorses a friendly settlement agreement must indicate, as pertinent, on the one hand, if it endorses, rejects, amends or complements the settlement and, on the other hand, the reparations and costs; although the Court may also decide the latter in a judgment on reparations and costs. From the foregoing, it can be concluded that there is no norm in the Convention, Statute or the Rules of Procedure that exempts the Court from determining corresponding reparations and compensation in its judgment, either on merits or reparations and costs, including those that endorse a friendly settlement reached by parties. the the on the II. Execution of judgment A. Confidentiality of the amount of the compensation However, it must be added that there is also no provision in the Convention, the Statute or the Rules of Procedure that authorizes the Court to keep the amount of the reparations and compensation that it decides in its judgments confidential or secret. Moreover, to the contrary, there is a treaty-based provision that supports precisely the publication of this amount or quantum. Thus, Article 68(2) of the Convention establishes: “That part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the State.” According to this treaty-based provision, the execution at the domestic level of an international judgment necessarily implies that everything this judgment orders be publicized. Otherwise, its full and complete execution would be impossible. Thus, the question that arises in this regard is how can the international judgment be executed at the domestic level of the State concerned, as it relates to compensation, if it does not include the amount. 3