amount with respect to a specific victim among his heirs; and b) the request for interpretation of paragraph 278 of the judgment, regarding the possibility of updating, for the purpose of deducting from the amounts of compensation established in the judgment, the amounts of money paid to the victims prior to the issuance of the judgment as reparations. A. Request for interpretation of the reason for the distribution of the amount of compensation corresponding to a victim among his heirs A.1. Consultation of the State and comments from the Commission 12. The State inquired as to the reason for the inclusion of the name of Washington Javier Barrios Fernández in paragraph 279 of the Judgment, since "the amount that corresponds to him is as a relative of his wife, and not as a victim of forced disappearance, as in the case for [Mr.] González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazú." The State limited itself to the inquiry indicated, without elaborating on the grounds for its request. 13. The Commission stated that “there are no doubts as to the mention of Washington Javier Barrios Hernández in the Court's judgment on the merits, so this point does not appear to be open to interpretation.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 14. The Court notes that, as recognized by the State, because he is the husband of Silvia Reyes, who was a victim of extrajudicial execution, Washington Javier Barrios Fernández was himself considered by the judgment to be a victim of human rights violations and, therefore, a beneficiary of measures of reparation. 7 Paragraph 277 of the judgment sets a sum of money as compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by Mr. Barrios Fernandez due to the extrajudicial execution of his wife. The Court took cognizance of information—which is not in dispute—indicating that Mr. Barrios Fernandez is missing. While this matter of fact was noted in the judgment, its possible legal implications were not examined by the Court, since it was not one of the facts submitted to it. 8 Taking into account this matter of fact, in paragraph 279 of its judgment, the Court established, in order to enable effective compliance with its decision, that the compensation amount corresponding to Mr. Barrios Fernández would be distributed among his heirs "pursuant to the applicable domestic law." 15. The judgment, then, is clear that the reasons why Washington Javier Barrios Fernández is included in paragraph 277 are not related to his possible status as a victim of forced disappearance, an issue that was not examined by the Court. 16. Therefore, the request for interpretation is inadmissible on this point. B. Request for interpretation regarding the possibility of updating, for the purpose of deducting from the amounts of compensation established in 7 This is established in operative paragraphs 3, 4, and 13 of the judgment, as well as paragraphs 150, 182, 190, 195 and 277 thereof. 8 Thus, in footnote 41 of the judgment, which corresponds to paragraph 51, in chapter VI entitled “Facts," in the section headed “Regarding the alleged victims", it is stated: "The representative pointed out that Washington Javier Barrios Fernández is disappeared. The facts surrounding his disappearance were not submitted to the Court.” 4