3 case both in the facts and the legal grounds for access to the Inter-American Commission and, accordingly, do not constitute a binding precedent for the Court; b) it is irrelevant that the Judgment did not specifically order the State to repeal either Decree Law No. 25640, as it was invalidated by virtue of Law No. 27487 of June 21, 2001, or Resolution No. 1239-A-CAC of October 13, 1992, as said resolution applied only for the purposes of the 1992 reorganization of the Congress of Peru; and c) “in [c]ompliance with the Judgment[, the State] has guaranteed to the Dismissed Congressional Employees the setting up of an independent and impartial body that will determine whether the 257 former employees’ dismissal from the Peruvian Congress was regular and justified or, otherwise, to determine and establish the applicable legal consequences and, as the case may be, the compensation due based on the specific circumstances pertaining to each of them.” 4. On August 1, 2007, the Commission submitted said written arguments. It considered that “the brief submitted to the Court by Fernández-Saré does not seek to have the Court interpret the meaning or scope of the Judgment, […] but, rather, it is aimed at obtaining a review, reconsideration and analysis of the final [J]udgment not subject to appeal [… rendered …], as he takes issue on the contents thereof.” After citing such previous decisions of the Court as it considered relevant, the Commission concluded that the arguments raised by Fernández-Faré “do[…] not constitute a request for interpretation proper.” II JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 5. Under Article 67 of the Convention, [t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In the event 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. Pursuant to the above-transcribed Article, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its own judgments. When considering a request for interpretation, the Court must be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought (Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). In this instance, the Court is composed of the majority of the judges who delivered the Judgment2 of which the interpretation is being sought. III ADMISSIBILITY 2 Judge Oliver Jackman, who due to reasons of force majeure had not taken part in the deliberation on and signing of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs of November 24, 2006, passed away on January 25, 2007. Due to reasons of force majeure, Judge Alirio Abreu-Burelli did not take part in the deliberation on and signing of this Judgment on Interpretation.