10 foregoing is shorter than the period established for the identification, delimitation, demarcation, titling and free transfer of the lands whose price should be previously budgeted,” and b) “how this obligation would be fulfilled considering the maximum time period of three years which was also set by the Court and within which the State should comply with [the transfer of the territory to the Community].” Arguments of the Inter-American Commission 29. The Commission considered that the second question raised by the representatives “addresses a valid doubt about how two parts of the judgment are supposed to be interpreted together with respect to its enforceability in the future,” and stated that: a) “nothing prevents […] the process of identification of the lands [, …] which will facilitate the accurate estimate of the necessary monies for the Fund, […] from being completed by the State within a year as from the date of notification of the [J]udgment [on the merits]. The other (two years) of the maximum time period allowed by the Court might be used, based on standards of necessity and usefulness, to fulfill the process of transfer of the territories to the injured party through their delimitation, demarcation, titling and material transfer,” and b) if the identification of the territory to be given to the Community was not made, the Commission considered that “it would be the State´s responsibility to create the Fund in any case, with enough funds to ensure that, in due course, it will be able to […]acquire the misappropriated territories and ‘sufficient to guarantee that the Community may develop and keep its own life style.’” Arguments of the State 30. For its part, the State considered that the representatives “have reques[ted] the […] Court to replace the State as to the budgetary provisions it should make to determine the sum to be allocated” either to the acquisition of the lands from private owners or to the payment of a fair compensation to the injured parties in case of condemnation as the case may be. Furthermore, the State argued that, though it is within the jurisdiction of the Court “to hear and determine the interpretation of the American Convention as to whether a violation thereof was committed […], and if such were the case, to impose sanctions, as it did in [the] Judgment [on the merits], it has no jurisdiction to determine ‘how’ the State which has been sanctioned […] should comply wit[h] the provisions of such Judgment [on the merits].” Considerations of the Court 31. The Court has verified that the second matter raised by the representatives in their request for interpretation poses a valid doubt, and therefore, it is admissible, and the Court now proceeds to examine it. 32. Paragraphs 215-217 of the Judgment on the merits rendered by the Court in the instant case provide that the State must identify the traditional territory of the Yakye Axa Community, delimit it, demarcate it, title and transfer said territory for