2. The interpretation judgment delivered by the Court on July 1, 2009, in which it decided unanimously: 1. To declare the request submitted by the State for the interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs delivered on November 27, 2008, in the case of Ticona Estrada et al. partially admissible. 2. To determine the scope and meaning of the questions raised by the State in paragraphs 14 and 18 of th[e] judgment, in relation to considering paragraphs 136 and 131, 132 and 139 of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs delivered on November 27, 2008, in the case of Ticona Estrada et al., which have been clarified by the Court in paragraphs 17, 21 and 22 of th[e] judgment. 3. To declare inadmissible the questions raised by the State in paragraphs 9 and 23, in relation to considering paragraphs 104 and 105 and 168 and 169 of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs delivered on November 27, 2008 in the case of Ticona Estrada et al. because they are not in keeping with the provisions of Articles 67 of the Convention and 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure, as indicated in paragraphs 12, 13 and 26 of th[e] judgment. […] 3. The briefs of the Republic of Bolivia (hereinafter “the State” or “Bolivia”) of August 24 and December 3, 2009, and May 21, August 26 and 31, 2010, forwarding information on the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgment. 4. The briefs of the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) of July 29 and November 13, 2009, and July 19, August 11 and December 17, 2010, in which they forwarded observations on the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgment. 5. The brief of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) of December 13, 2010, in which it forwarded observations regarding the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgment. 6. The communication of the Secretariat of June 29, 2010, in which, on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the representatives were asked to submit their observations on the first report of the State presented on May 21, 2010. The Secretariat’s communication of July 20, 2010, in which the representatives were asked to forward complementary observations on the measures ordered that have been implemented by the State, and the Secretariat’s communication of August 9, 2010, repeating the previous request to the State. The communications of October 15 and of December 7, 2010, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President, asked the representatives to present their observations on the State’s second report submitted on August 26, 2010. Moreover, in the last communication, the Commission was asked to submit its observations on the first and second reports presented by the State. CONSIDERING THAT: 1. An inherent power of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. 2. Bolivia has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) since July 19, 1979, and 2