2 whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which interpretation is being sought (Article 58(3) of the Rules of Procedure). In this instance, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the judgment on the merits, whose interpretation the Commission has requested. II INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2. On June 20, 2001, the Commission presented a request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. III PROCEDURE WITH THE COURT 3. By note of June 21, 2001, the Secretariat of the Court forwarded a copy of the request for interpretation to the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) and, pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, invited it to present any written comments it deemed pertinent by July 23, 2001, at the latest. 4. On July 16, 2001, the State requested an extension for presenting its observations on the request for an interpretation of judgment. On instructions from the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the extension was granted via a note from the Secretariat, dated August 13, 2001. 5. On August 17, 2001, Peru requested “a special extension, until Friday, [August] 24 of this [year] to present [its] comments […] on the request for an interpretation of the judgment on the merits in the Barrios Altos Case,” based on “the recent cabinet changes ushered in with the new Administration.” On the President’s instructions, the Secretariat informed the State that in view of the exceptional circumstance cited by Peru, its deadline for submitting its comments on the request for an interpretation of the judgment was extended until August 22, 2001. 6. Although it had requested and received two extensions, Peru finally presented its written comments on the request for an interpretation of the judgment on August 29, 2001, which was after the extended deadline. The Court considers that the time elapsed cannot be regarded as reasonable according to the criterion it uses in its case-law1; and in the interests of the 1 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 50; “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al. vs. Chile). Order of November 9, 1999, Consideranda 4; Paniagua Morales et al .Case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paragraphs 152-156; Suárez Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, paragraphs 70-75; Genie Lacayo Case. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, paragraphs 77-81; Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C No. 24, para. 34; Paniagua