the judgment on merits, reparations and costs delivered by the Court on October 13, 2011,
in the instant case (hereinafter also “the judgment”) submitted on February 13, 2012, by
Alicia Barbani Duarte and María del Huerto Breccia Farro, victims and representatives of
some of the victims in this case (hereinafter “the representatives” or “Mrs. Barbani and Mrs.
Breccia”).
I
INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION
AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
1.
On October 13, 2011, the Court delivered the judgment, which was notified to the
parties on November 18 that year.
2.
On February 13, 2012, the representatives presented a brief in which they submitted
to the Court a request for “clarification” of the judgment, indicating that “having examined
the list of the 539 […] victims included in the judgment delivered on October 13, 2011,
[they] h[ad] detected that [three] persons should not have been included on the list and
should not be beneficiaries of the corresponding rights,” owing to specific situations that
they described (infra para. 16).3
3.
On February 29, 2012, on the instructions of the Court in plenary, the Secretariat of
the Court forwarded the said communication to the Oriental Republic of Uruguay
(hereinafter “Uruguay” or “the State”) and the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”). In addition, the
State and the Inter-American Commission were advised that they could present any written
arguments or observations they deemed pertinent by March 23, 2012, at the latest.
4.
On March 23, 2012, the Inter-American Commission presented its observations on
the said “clarification” of the representatives, indicating that “it had no other information in
relation to” the comments of the representatives about the three victims. The State did not
present arguments or observations with regard to the representatives’ request for
“clarification.”
II
COMPETENCE
5.
Article 67 of the Convention establishes that:
The 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.
6.
According to this article, the Court is competent to interpret its judgments. When
examining the request for interpretation and making the corresponding ruling, if possible,
the Court must have the same composition that it had when it delivered the respective
judgment, in keeping with Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the
Court is composed of the judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation has been
requested by the representatives.
3
The brief of the representatives consists of an e-mail, without annexes or other documents attached.
2