3 Court (hereinafter also “the Secretariat”) sent a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the InterAmerican Commission” or “the Commission”) and to the Organización del Pueblo Indígena Tlapaneco/Me´phaa (OPIM) [Tlapaneco/Me´phaa Indigenous Peoples Organization], the Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan” [Tlachinollan” Mountain Human Rights Center] and to the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (all hereinafter “the representatives”) giving them until February 11, 2011, to submit any written arguments they considered pertinent. 4. On February 11, 2011, the Inter-American Commission submitted its written arguments, and considered “the State’s assertions and conclusions inadmissible and irreceivable,” because the State was not asking the Court to interpret the meaning or scope of the ruling, but rather it was seeking a revision and reconsideration of the final non-appealable judgment because it disagreed with the decisions therein. The Commission also indicated that the State had the opportunity to litigate the issues on which it had requested interpretation at the appropriate procedural moment, and that there were no grounds for reopening the discussion. 5. On February 11, 2011, the representatives forwarded their written arguments and asked the Court to declare the request for interpretation inadmissible. They argued that (a) the State was attempting to modify the Court’s judgment by asking it to address factual and legal issues that had been brought up during the analysis of the merits of the case and specifically decided in the judgment, and (b) there was no reasonable doubt with regard to the meaning or scope of the aspects about which the interpretation was requested. In addition, they considered that the State was trivializing the proven facts and, consequently, weakening the operative paragraphs of the judgment, resulting in a lack of compliance with them. II COMPETENCE AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 6. 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. 7. Pursuant to this article, the Court has competence to interpret its judgments. In order to examine the request for interpretation and to rule on it, in accordance with Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court must, if possible, have the same composition as when it handed down the judgment in question. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who adopted the judgment the interpretation of which has been requested by the State. III ADMISSIBILITY 8. The Court must verify whether the request for interpretation meets the requirements established in the applicable norms, namely Article 67 of the Convention, cited above, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, the relevant part of which states: