10 29. The Court has already determined in the admissibility requirements that a request for interpretation should seek clarity or precision in the operative paragraphs of the judgment or in considerations that have a bearing on the operative paragraphs thereof (supra para. 11). In this case, the State requested the interpretation of certain paragraphs of the judgment without specifying their possible relevance to the operative paragraphs; the only exception to this is the reference or connection that the State makes to the tenth operative paragraph of the judgment, with the request that this paragraph be clarified. This operative paragraph clearly and precisely orders the State to conduct the investigation under the ordinary justice system efficiently and within a reasonable time and, if appropriate, the criminal proceedings that it is processing in relation to the rape of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, in order to determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities and to apply, as appropriate, the punishments and other consequences established by law, all in accordance with paragraphs 211 to 213 of the judgment. 30. In this regard, the Court observes that, in its references to the tenth operative paragraph of the judgment, Mexico correctly understands “the State’s obligation to maintain any inquiries that may be initiated against military personnel within the ordinary jurisdiction”; that “the State is ordered to continue its investigations in the ordinary jurisdiction even if it is decided to investigate military personnel and file proceedings against them,” and that the military justice system is the inappropriate jurisdiction for the investigation of human rights violations. This reveals that the State understood the simple and clear mandate arising from the Court’s judgment. Furthermore, the Court underscores that, in its request for interpretation, the State itself affirmed that “in the tenth operative paragraph, the Court ordered [the State] to conduct the investigations and, as appropriate, to file criminal proceedings against those who are found responsible so that the competent judicial authority may decide whether criminal responsibility exists and, as appropriate, apply the legal punishments and consequences.” Thus, the Court ordered that the competent authorities of the domestic system of justice determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities. Consequently, there is no lack of clarity in the Court’s decision in the operative paragraph in question, and the State has revealed this in its arguments, so that the request submitted by Mexico in this regard is inadmissible. 31. Moreover, the Court observes the State is attempting to make the Court rule on factual and legal issues upon which it has already adopted a decision (supra para. 12). Specifically, it indicated that, since the preliminary inquiry into the facts is underway in the domestic jurisdiction, investigations into the alleged offenses committed continue and will determine the corresponding responsibilities, as well as whether State agents were involved. The foregoing reveals that Mexico questioned the Court’s competence to establish the proven facts in this case and the consequent declaration of international responsibility. The Court’s case law has established repeatedly that a request for interpretation of judgment shall not be used as a means to contest the decision of which an interpretation is sought (supra para. 11). Consequently, the interpretation requested on this aspect is also inadmissible. b) Material competence of the Court 32. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with regard to the Court’s alleged lack of competence to determine individual criminal responsibilities, the Court advises the State that its consistent case law is expressly affirmed in the judgment. From reading the judgment, it is clear that the Court has not exceeded its competence, nor