158 Murray, Long, Ayeni and Somé/Monitoring implementation of decisions the ruling.23 The procedure is in effect a new application, for interpretation of a judgment, as set out in Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. Here, however, the roles are reversed: the State then becoming the applicant, and the previous applicant, the respondent. Are such processes insufficient or simply not properly used? Why, given the above tools, has the African Commission, for example, not produced publicly available information on the status of implementation of at least some of its decisions? In part, the processes do not appear to have been exploited to their full potential due to limited information from States, and insufficient staffing resources, among other factors. In addition, there are also key processes or tools behind the scenes that are missing, such as efficient and comprehensive case management systems or databases which, if in place, would help the monitoring overall. The task of follow-up and monitoring implementation has been added on to already existing processes but with limited if any additional resources. Specific mechanisms have also been established to enable the bodies themselves to monitor implementation of their decisions and judgments. These, as will be seen, encompass many of the types of monitoring that are listed above. Rule 112 of the African Commission’s Rules of Procedure sets out the procedure for ‘follow-up’ to be used by the African Commission. Here its role includes reporting, informationgathering, assessment and arguably enforcement and is not only reactive but also proactive. These roles have principally been coordinated by the African Commission’s Working Group on Communications, composed of Commissioners and members of the secretariat, which is tasked with considering communications.24 Its mandate was expanded in October 2012 to include the coordination of follow-up of decisions and collection of ‘information on the status of implementation of the Commission’s decisions’ that it should then present in a report at each session.25 Article 29 of the Court Protocol gives the task of monitoring to the AU’s Executive Council although its ability to do so is dependent on the African Court providing it with the information on ‘non-compliance’ in its activity report.26 In a 2014 Decision, the Executive Council called on the African Court to ‘propose, for consideration by the PRC, a concrete reporting mechanism that will enable it to bring to the attention of relevant policy organs, situations of non-compliance and/or any other issues within its mandate, at any time, when the interests of justice so 23 See for instance, Mkandawire v Malawi, Application 3/2011 http://en.africancourt.org/images/Cases/Judgment/Ruling%20Appl.%20003-2011%20Urban%20Mka ndawire%20v%20Malawi%20-%20English.pdf (accessed 12 July 2017); and Interpretation of Judgment of 20 November 2015 Thomas v Tanzania, Application 1/ 2017 (Judgment 28 September 2017). 24 African Commission, Resolution 212 on the mandate of the Working Group on Communications of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted March 2012. 25 African Commission, Resolution 255 on the expansion of the mandate of the Working Group on Communications and Modifying its Composition, adopted October 2012. 26 Article 31 of the Court Protocol.