3 necessity of juridical security and equality of arms, the Court decides not to add that brief to the case file. 7. On August 29, 2001, Walter Alban Peralta, Peru’s Ombudsman, presented a brief of amicus curiae, which was added to the case file. IV PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. In its request for an interpretation, the Commission is petitioning the Court for clarification of certain questions as to the meaning and scope of the judgment on the merits. Specifically, the Commission is asking the Court whether the effects of operative paragraph 4 of the judgment delivered on March 14, 2001 in this case apply only to this case or to all those cases of human rights violations wherein the amnesty laws (No. 26479 and No. 26492) were applied. 9. The Commission bases this request for interpretation on the fact that: [i]n the negotiations between the petitioners’ representatives and the Government of Peru on the matter of reparations, the petitioners’ representatives, with the Commission’s support, argued that the State is undertaking to nullify the effects of the amnesty laws (Nº 26479 and Nº 26492) in all cases of human rights violations where these laws were applied. However, the petitioners’ representatives have informed the Commission […] that the government delegation has insisted that in its opinion, the Judgment of the Inter-American Court would apply only to the Barrios Altos Case. V ADMISSIBILITY 10. Under Article 67 of the Convention, the request for interpretation must be filed “within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” The Court has established that the Inter-American Commission was given notice of the judgment on the merits on March 20, 2001. The request for interpretation was, therefore, presented by the required time limit (supra para. 2). 11. The Court must now turn its attention to the question of whether the issues that the request for interpretation raises meet the standards that the applicable rules set. Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure provides that [t]he request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. 12. The Commission’s request for interpretation is based on the fact that Peru “has insisted that in its opinion, the Judgment of the Inter-American Court would Morales et al. Case, Preliminary Objection. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, paragraphs 38, 40-42; and Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, paragraphs 42 and 63.