21. Paragraph 206 of the judgment specifically holds that the State should adopt “legislative or other measures to adapt its domestic legal system to the provisions of the American Convention, in accordance with the ruling in this judgment in relation to 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”. 22. Therefore, the Court hereby clarifies paragraph 206 of the judgment, which establishes that the State must adopt legislative or other measures that provide for: (i) the reinstatement of non-ratified judges to the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service, and (ii) the possibility of appealing decisions not to ratify a judge, such that its domestic legal system will be compatible with the provisions of the American Convention. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 23. Therefore, THE COURT pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and articles 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: Unanimously: 1. To declare admissible, pursuant to paragraph 7 of this judgment of interpretation, the request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs in the Case of Cuya Lavy et al v. Peru submitted by the State. 2. To clarify, by interpretation, paragraph 206 of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs in the Case of Cuya Lavy et al v. Peru, pursuant to paragraphs 21 through 23 of this judgment of interpretation. 3. To require the Registrar of the Court to notify this judgment on interpretation to the Republic of Peru, the representatives of the victims and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 7