48. In addressing issues of compliance with its judgments, the Court needs to take Articles 29, 30 and 31 of the Protocol into consideration. 49. Article 29 of the Protocol stipulates that the Executive Council shall “be notified of the judgment and shall monitor its execution on behalf of the Assembly.” 50. Article 30 of the Protocol provides: “[t]he States parties to the present Protocol undertake to comply with the judgment in any case to which they are parties within the time stipulated by the Court and to guarantee its execution.” 51. Article 31 of the Protocol obliges the Court to “submit to each regular session of the Assembly, a report on its work during the previous year. The report shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a State has not complied with the Court's judgment.” 52. While the Respondent State disputes execution of its judgments, the Court's jurisdiction to monitor the the question that arises, is whether the Court can successfully fulfil its obligation provided for under Article 31 of the Protocol to report to the Assembly, if it cannot determine the status of compliance with its judgments before submitting the report. 53. The Court further considers that the division of competences between itself and Executive Council, raised by the Respondent State, can reasonably be described in terms of complementarity. Accordingly, the mandate of the Executive Council to monitor the execution of judgments, pursuant to Article 29 of the Protocol, does not prevent the Court from making a determination whether a State has or has not complied with its judgment, as provided for under Article 31 of the Protocol. 54. While the Protocol does not prescribe how the Court should proceed to make the determination of the degree of compliance with its judgments, the Court, like other international human rights courts, has developed a practice, where it orders 13