5 Arguments of the parties 14. The Mexican State declared its willingness to comply with all aspects of the Court’s judgment in strict observance of its international commitments. It affirmed that compliance with the judgment “constitutes an element of public order that the Mexican authorities are obliged to observe, arising from the obligations assumed […] before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights,” and it reiterated “that it will continue to promote all necessary measures to comply with its international obligations in light of the judgment.” Mexico based its request for interpretation on six arguments that are summarized below. 15. First, it noted that paragraph 105 of the judgment indicates that the Court does not have competence to determine individual responsibilities, despite which, in paragraph 161, in relation to paragraphs 104 and 106, it refers to military personnel as participants in the perpetration of the offenses denounced by Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. In this regard, the State indicated that this “should be clarified, since it individualizes the number of persons who intervened and specifically indicates that they were soldiers.” The Court “identif[ied] eight individuals who are part of a [military] institution as those responsible [for raping Mrs. Rosendo Cantú],” a determination that, according to the State, “does not fall within the Court’s competence [because] it is not incumbent upon the Court to establish specific individual criminal responsibilities.” It also indicated that it is essential to consider that “in the domestic sphere, […] the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage, so that the determination of criminal responsibilities for the alleged offenses perpetrated against [Mrs.] Rosendo Cantú will be derived from these investigations, including whether or not State agents were involved in the facts.” Consequently, it concluded that “as the investigation is ongoing […] direct criminal responsibility cannot be attributed to eight State agents and, in particular, their status as military personnel or any other characteristics, such as the institution to which they belong, cannot be individualized or specified.” 16. Second, the State affirmed that the judgment “is not compatible with the criteria [of the Court] consisting in not attributing individual responsibilities since, on the one hand, […] it asserts that eight military personnel participated in the rape […] and, on the other, it states that individualizing those responsible is not one of Court’s competences.” Hence, in its case law, the Court “has abstained […] from attributing individual responsibility or making direct accusations.” The State reproduced several quotes from different cases heard by the Court where it had indicated that it was not a criminal court that analyzed individual criminal responsibilities 17. Third, Mexico stated that the corresponding criminal responsibility had not yet been legally determined, because criminal proceedings were ongoing. These are the domestic criminal proceedings “that [will] permit identifying [those responsible] and thus establish whether they are agents of the State and the institution to which they belong.” It reiterated that “irrespective of whether or not those responsible belong to a specific institution, the investigations will be carried out under the ordinary system of justice, as the Court ordered.” 18. Fourth, the State argued that “the ruling made [by the Court] in its judgment that it was military personnel who perpetrated the rape […] appears to run counter to the American Convention itself […] and even to the guarantees established in the Constitution of the United Mexican States.” In this regard, in order to attribute direct responsibility to military personnel, the authorities must follow a procedure that