4 addition, the State must finance the radio airing of [the] Judgment, pursuant to paragraph 227 thereof. 13. the State must make payments to compensate for pecuniary damages, costs and expenses within one year from notification of the […] judgment, pursuant to paragraphs 195 and 232 of [the] Judgment. 14. the Court will monitor compliance with [the] Judgment and it will conclude this case once the State has fully complied with the provisions therein. Within one year from notification of [the] Judgment, the State must render a report account to the Court concerning the measures adopted to fulfill the Judgment, pursuant to paragraph 241 thereof. 2. The Judgment on the merits was notified to the parties on July 14, 2005. II JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 3. Article 67 of the Convention, states that: [t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 4. Pursuant to the above-mentioned article, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its judgments and, when considering the request for interpretation, it must, whenever possible, be composed of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought (see Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). In this case, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the Judgment on the merits of which the representatives have requested an interpretation2. III INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND ITS PURPOSE 5. On October 14, 2005, the representatives submitted a request for interpretation of the Judgment on the merits, in accordance with Article 67 of the Convention and Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 6. The representatives’ request for interpretation made reference to two aspects: (a) the provisions in the sixth operative paragraph of the Judgment on the merits, which, according to them, “orders the State to return the territory historically owned by the members of the [C]ommunity, whilst at the same time it seems to direct that the area in issue has to be ‘identified’; and (b) the manner in which the State should fulfill its obligation under the eighth operative paragraph of the Judgment on the merits, to establish a fund for the sole purpose of acquiring the territories to be conveyed to the members of the Yakye Axa Community, “since the 2 Even though ad hoc Judge Ramón Fogel-Pedroso did not participate in the discussions leading to this Judgment at the Court’s headquarters in San José, Costa Rica, he had been consulted prior to deliberation and voting, and agreed with the contents of this interpretation judgment.