(2017) 1 African Human Rights Yearbook 157 information on any issue relating to implementation of the interim measures adopted by it’.17 Rule 54(5) of Rules of Court enables the Court to ‘invite the parties to provide it with information on any issue relating to implementation of the interim measures adopted by it’. 4 MECHANISMS The challenge with monitoring implementation of the judgments of the African Court and decisions of the African Commission does not appear to be due to the lack of available mechanisms to do so. In addition to any specific procedure or mechanism to deal with monitoring, these bodies have also used the more generic procedures established under their mandates to monitor implementation of their judgments and decisions. So, the African Commission has asked questions of States during the examination of their article 62 reports about what measures have been taken to implement decisions;18 it has amended the structure of its activity reports to refer to the implementation status of decisions;19 it has included follow-up on decisions in its fact-finding missions by special procedures,20 and its promotional missions;21 and it has made reference to the status of implementation of decisions in country-specific resolutions.22 The African Court has enabled States to use the application for interpretation of a judgment procedure as set out in Rule 66 of the Rules of Court to request clarity on what is expected from them in the implementation of judgments and orders ruled by the Court. The African Court can and does offer technical assistance to States on how to implement its decision. At least two States have requested the Court to clarify aspects of its orders in order for them to be able to implement 17 Rule 51(4) of the Rules of the African Court Eg the Concluding Observations on Mauritania’s report, 16 February 2012. 19 Eg African Commission, 35th Activity Report of the African Commission, adopted October 2013, reference to Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and INTERIGHTS v Egypt, Communication 323/2006, to ‘follow-up on implementation’ 7, see also para 27: ‘With regards to Communication 419/2012 - The Indigenous Peoples of the Lower Omo (Represented by Survival International Charitable Trust) v Ethiopia, the Commission issued an Order against the State, requesting the latter to adopt Provisional Measures to prevent irreparable harm being caused to the victim of alleged human rights violations; the State has not respected that Order’. 20 Eg OSJI (n 3 above) 107; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Refugees, Asylum Seekers, Displaced Persons and Migrants in Africa, presented at the 52nd Ordinary Session of the African Commission, 9-22 October 2012 para 44. 21 Eg a decision on a number of related communications against Mauritania was discussed in a promotional visit by the CPTA Chairperson in 2012, Report of the Promotional Mission to the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, 26 March – 1 April 2012 9. Similarly, in a mission to Botswana in 2005, the visiting delegation requested information on the steps taken to implement recommendations on the decision on Modise v Botswana communication, Report of the Promotional Mission to the Republic of Botswana, 14-18 February 2005 13. 22 See African Commission, Resolution 91 on the human rights situation on Eritrea, adopted December 2005. 18