148 PROMOTING AND PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS well as thematic, country and annual reports. The Rapporteur works with the other Commission rapporteurs on matters related to the mandate and also engages with civil society in order to raise awareness of the guarantees and mechanisms the inter-American human rights system offers. The Rapporteur also maintains a database of current information related to the mandate, and collaborates with relevant United Nations bodies, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Inter-American Court of Human Rights Acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is optional, even for those States which are parties to the Convention. In considering whether to approach the Court, therefore, it is necessary first to confirm whether the State in question has accepted the Court’s jurisdiction. Currently, 22 of the 24 States parties to the Convention have done so. States which are not party to the Convention cannot be brought before the Court. The Court consists of seven judges, and its seat is in San José, Costa Rica.190 The Court is empowered to issue advisory opinions on various aspects of human rights, including the compatibility of domestic legislation with the Convention. Only member States and OAS organs can request advisory opinions. Although the Court’s advisory opinions are not legally binding, they are important sources of jurisprudence and should be consulted whenever relevant to a particular case or issue. To date, over 20 such opinions have been rendered; of particular interest to minorities might be the advisory opinions on consular assistance (No. 16/99) and undocumented migrants (No. 18/03). The Court has issued final decisions or judgements in over 200 contentious cases. These cases can reach the Court only after the Commission has issued its report on the merits of the case; either the Commission itself or the State concerned can refer the case to the Court. It is now normal practice for the Commission to refer all cases to the Court in which the Commission has found a violation of the Convention but the State has failed to comply with its recommendations. During its consideration the Court hears representatives of the petitioner as well as the Commission and the State, and the proceedings are formal. The Court may undertake its own investigation of the facts and hear witnesses, if it considers it necessary. The Court’s judgements are legally binding on the State concerned. The Court can order compensation or other relief, and it may also award attorney’s costs and reimbursement of expenses. The Court’s jurisprudence with respect to minority-specific issues has been relatively sparse, although it has ruled on such important issues as the responsibility of a State for forced disappearances, the death penalty and land rights of indigenous peoples.191 See www.corteidh.or.cr/ (accessed 6 December 2012). 190 The Court’s jurisprudence is available from its website. Two illustrative cases are: Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 12.189 (2005), which affirmed the human right to nationality as a prerequisite to the equal enjoyment of all rights as civic members of a State; and Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 10.150 (1991 [merits], 1993 [reparations]), where the Court utilized, in part, the customary law and practices of the Saramaka tribe to determine appropriate reparations to be paid by the State for both “actual” and “moral” damages, after Suriname admitted human rights violations including torture and arbitrary execution. 191