164 Murray, Long, Ayeni and Somé/Monitoring implementation of decisions of such a decision by the Court? This is clearly not a desirable solution. The African Court has had no real opportunity to explore this relationship and its role in monitoring non-implementation of African Commission decisions. Therefore, a more positive approach is possible: it does have the potential, given the chance, to bolster the African Commission’s reputation and status through upholding and strengthening its decisions. Indeed, the African Court’s judgments so far indicate that far from challenging the jurisprudence of the African Commission, it has drawn heavily on it in its own interpretation of the African Charter. Furthermore, the concern that States may not be implementing the decisions of the African Commission because they are not binding has not so far been borne out in the research we have conducted: in the majority of situations that we have been examining the State has not at all questioned the legal status of the African Commission’s decision.52 Rather, our research concludes that the reasons why the decision or judgment will be implemented are more complex. They include the nature of the current political context, such as whether there has been a change in government; the particularly sensitivity of the issues in the decision or judgment in the light of what is happening in the State at the time; what kind of particular remedies the decision or judgment requires; and the practical feasibility of carrying them out. Sometimes States may well have implemented, at least in part, a decision or judgment but this is not information that is known publicly. Other factors impeding implementation include consideration of the specificity of the recommendations or orders made by the African Commission and Court, and whether a correct balance was made between providing clarity to the State on what precisely was required of it to implement the decision, as against giving it the discretion to determine what was the most appropriate way of implementing within the context of the State.53 We recognise that detailed consideration of all of these issues relies on some structural reform not only at the levels of the bodies themselves but also at the AU. Equally, clarity on the respective roles impacts on basic procedural issues. For example, research elsewhere, supported by our preliminary findings, indicates that the visibility of the decision and judgment as well as what the State may or may not have done to implement it, is crucial to successful implementation.54 Yet, it is not always clear whose responsibility it is to publicise the decision, inform others beyond the parties, and make national, regional and international actors aware of what the State has done to implement. As noted above, the African Court is providing some detail 52 There is one notable historical exception, Good v Botswana, Communication 313/ 05, Combined 32nd and 33rd Activity Report: ‘the Government has made its position clear; that it is not bound by the decision of the Commission’ para 24. 53 See also S Cardenas Conflict and compliance: State responses to international human rights pressure (2007); C Hillebrecht Domestic politics and international human rights tribunals: the problem of compliance (2014); B Simmons Mobilizing for human rights: international law in domestic politics (2009); Open Society Justice Initiative (n 1 above). 54 See eg Open Society Justice Initiative (n 3 above) 52, 77, 80, 83, 88, 92.