(2017) 1 African Human Rights Yearbook 159 require’.27 It has been suggested that ‘reporting’ should be considered as separate from ‘monitoring’ and ‘enforcement’.28 ‘Reporting’ includes those reports on non-compliance submitted by the African Court to the Executive Council through article 31 of the Protocol. ‘Monitoring’ should be undertaken by the Executive Council in accordance with article 29; and include the ability of the Executive Council, through working groups or a group specifically for ‘ongoing supervision of the state of execution of judicial decisions of the Court’, to issue regulations or directions or appropriate action.29 ‘Enforcement’ will then be carried out by the AU Assembly, with information on the measures taken by the State being maintained by a register at the AU Commission.30 The practice of the African Commission and the African Court reveals that they employ a range of different tasks to monitor implementation. With respect to information gathering, the African Commission has received information from one or both parties to the communication,31 and on occasion others,32 on the extent to which its recommendations have been implemented. It has also been more active in gathering evidence of implementation, for example, by sending notes verbales and letters to the States and parties requesting information, although the responses are not always provided.33 Despite it not being expressly mentioned in Rule 112, it has also held hearings on 27 AU Executive Council, Decision on the 2013 Activity Report of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted January 2014 para 9. 28 African Court Coalition (n 13 above) para 2.2. See also GW Kakai ‘Compliance with supranational human rights judgements and decisions in Sub-Saharan Africa: successes, challenges and opportunities. African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights experience’, Presentation, Raoul Wallenberg Institute, Closing The Implementation Gap – Strengthening Compliance with Regional Human Rights Decisions Regional Symposium, 27-28 September 2016, Hotel Intercontinental, Nairobi, Kenya, on file with authors. 29 African Court Coalition (n 13 above). See also Kakai (n 11 above). 30 As above. 31 ‘In Communication 365/08, the Complainant informed the Commission that the decision of the Commission has been partially implemented, and the Commission has requested the State to implement the outstanding part of the decision. In Communication 323/06, the Respondent State indicated that efforts have been made to protect the rights of women in the country in general, and the Commission has requested the State for information regarding the concrete measures (being) taken to implement the specific decision of the Commission in the Communication in identified areas’, African Commission, Thirty-Sixth Activity Report, November 2013-May 2014 paras 24-27. 32 Malawi Africa Association et al v Mauritania, Communications 54/91-61/91, 9893-164/97, 196/97, 210/98, ImplementationDossier. For presentation to the African Commission on the occasion of the 50th Ordinary Session, October 2011. IHRDA were not the original complainants. See also statements made during sessions of the African Commission, eg IHRDA, Statement of IHRDA on implementation of the African Commission’s decision in Communication 292/04, IHRDA v Angola, 58th Ordinary Session, 12 April 2016. 33 Eg African Commission, Thirty-Seventh Activity Report, June – December 2014 para 50: ‘The Commission did not receive any information on this during the reporting period’.