(2017) 1 African Human Rights Yearbook 165 in its activity reports on the measures taken by the States to implement its judgments. The African Commission, in contrast, has been more hesitant in taking an active role in disseminating, beyond the parties to the case, information on the decision or judgment and the level of its implementation. Relatedly, decisions are now not attached to the African Commission’s activity reports, as they had been in the past. The African Commission may also delay the process of finalising the final text of the decision, thus introducing further uncertainty and lack of clarity about when the State and parties have been ‘informed’ of the Commission’s decision. There is clear acknowledgment by those within and outside the African Court and African Commission that monitoring implementation is not working as well as it could be. For the African Court the information provided in its reports suggests that it is undertaking some forms of the monitoring, although the results of the extent to which the judgments are being implemented are unsatisfactory. The Court noted in its 2017 mid-term report listed among its challenges the non-implementation of its decisions, including refusals to implement, failure to inform the Court of what measures have been taken, and the slow-pace’ or ‘reluctance’ to comply.55 Similarly, the African Commission has recently ‘lamented the low compliance rate’ of States with its decisions.56 Yet, there is also an impasse, certainly at the level of the African Commission, in terms of what steps should now be taken to put in place a coherent and effective system. While it is admirable that time is being taken to consider these issues, this is also frustrating. Even if a cohesive approach can be found, it will not be quick. In the meantime, victims are still awaiting justice on the remedies already recommended and ordered. We therefore consider that there are various practical and immediate steps that can be taken to enhance the monitoring process. Leaving aside proper consideration of what roles these bodies should undertake, our research concludes, in the first place, that at the very least the African Commission and the African Court should gather information about implementation. Both the Commission and Court have the competence to do so within their existing Rules of Procedure. A reactive role requires no immediate additional resources and indeed, the bodies appear already to be carrying this out, albeit not consistently or comprehensively. However, a proactive information-gathering role requires a little more thought and necessitates actively seeking out information, on a regular basis, from the parties but also other actors at the national, regional and international levels. Second, an internal case management system which includes information on the measures taken by the State to implement the decision or judgment could assist the African Commission and African Court in keeping track on the sources of evidence, the timeframe in which any measures may have been taken, and enable this data to be cross-referenced with other records that they may hold on that State. 55 56 See African Court, Mid-Term Activity Report, 1 January - 30 June 2017, paras 45-46. African Commission, 42nd Activity Report, February 2017 - May 2017 para 35(a).