clear enough to permit an understanding of the changes called for in operative paragraph 10, which, according to paragraph 206 refer to […] the possibility of “the reinstatement of the non-ratified judges to the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service, and to the possibility of appealing decisions determining the non-ratification of a judge.” The Commission emphasized the fact that the authorities’ obligation to exercise ex officio conventionality control while the process of amending the legal framework was carried out was made sufficiently clear in the judgment. 15. The representatives of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy made reference to several documents,8 based on which they believed that the request for interpretation submitted by the State should not to be limited to the issues raised, but rather include others ranging from constitutional/legal considerations (Organic Law of the National Council of Justice) to regulatory matters and the directives for the implementation of the current process of evaluation and ratification of judges of the Judiciary and prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service, based on the regulations for the procedure governing the comprehensive evaluation and ratification process for judges of the Judiciary and prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service. This meant that the National Council of Justice should proceed immediately to adapt its scope to the parameters set by the Convention as established in the judgment of September 28, 2021 and suspend the announcement of processes for the comprehensive evaluation and ratification of judges of the Judiciary and prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service. This would avert any imminent risk of a repetition of the events described in the judgment and of the State failing to perform its duties.9 Furthermore, the representatives requested that the Court provide an extensive interpretation of the judgment dealing with aspects related to the overarching process of ratifying judges and prosecutors. 16. The representatives of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna10 indicated that they “understand that the judgment issued by the Court […] is direct and allows no room for error.” 17. The representative of Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse did not submit observations directly related to the State’s request for interpretation. However, he drew attention to “three legislative proposals that the State must implement”: (a) “amendment of subparagraph 13 of Article 48 of Law 29,277,11 under which the ‘failure to give the grounds for judicial decisions’ is classified as a very serious offense”; (b) the application of the principle of expiry in administrative sanctions procedures, according to Article 259 of Law No 27,444, General Administrative Procedure Act,12 which establishes that These were issued by: the President of the National Board of Justice; the President of the Judiciary; the Judiciary; the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic; the presidents of Peru’s 35 Higher Courts of Justice; the President of the Higher Court of Justice of Arequipa; the President of the Justice and Human Rights Commission of the Congress of the Republic; the President of the National Council of Deans of the Bar Associations of Peru; the President of the District Association of Judges of Arequipa; and, the President of Peru’s National Association of Judges, Association of Public Prosecutors, Association of Judges for Justice and Democracy, among others. 9 The representatives also pointed out that the Supranational Specialized Public Prosecutor’s Office had sought the interpretation only at the request of the National Board of Justice, without considering the arguments of Peru’s Judiciary. 10 On April 17, 2022, the representatives reported that Valenzuela Cerna had died on April 11, 2022. 11 Paragraph 13 of Article 48 of the law presently reads as follows: “Failure to give the grounds for judicial decisions, or unjustified failure to perform judicial duties." The amendment proposed by the representative would read: “Failure to give the grounds for judicial decisions. Complainants wishing to challenge this finding must have appealed the decision that they find injurious.” Cf. Judicial Service Act, published on November 7, 2008, in the official state newspaper El Peruano. 12 Article 259 establishes: “Administrative expiry of sanctions procedure 1. The period for issuing decisions regarding sanctions procedures initiated ex officio is nine (9) months from the date of notification of proceedings. This term may be extended exceptionally, for a maximum of three (3) months, and the competent body must issue a duly justified decision on the reasons for the extension, before the initial term has expired. Administrative expiry 8 5