11 clarified does not directly impact the operative part of the Judgment (supra para. 11). This also makes the request for interpretation inadmissible. 36. For the reasons stated, the request for interpretation is declared inadmissible on this issue, since there is no possibility for the decision to be modified or expanded (supra paras. 11 and 12), according to Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. C. The reparation ordered regarding training programs for the Armed Forces Arguments of the parties and the Commission 37. The State asked the Court to clarify the specific aspects that must be presented to comply with the reparation measure related to the training programs for the Armed Forces. In this regard, the State mentioned that paragraph 273 of the judgment indicates that the State had presented information regarding various training courses in international human rights law and international humanitarian law that had been conducted. Likewise, it indicated that, in paragraph 274 of the judgment and in the thirteenth operative paragraph, the Court ordered the State to implement permanent human rights and international humanitarian law programs in the training schools for the Armed Forces that specifically include the topics of enforced disappearances of persons and conventionality control. Therefore, taking into account the “extensive information presented by the Peruvian State in its answering brief of February 20, 2013”, the State requested that the Court clarify: “what specific aspects does the Court consider must be presented to comply with this measure of reparation?” 38. The representatives contended that the request to interpret this point of the judgment is “manifestly inadmissible, since there is no obscurity or lack of clarity in the aforementioned judgment.” In this regard, they stated that the question posed by the State “is related to the execution of the judgment itself, and not to an aspect of it that requires clarification or interpretation, since, as the Court has indicated, to date there is no evidence that the State has fully complied with the training measures for members of the armed forces” ordered in the cases of La Cantuta v. Peru and Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Likewise, they considered that the orders to monitor compliance with the judgments issued in the aforementioned cases “should clarify the State's questions on this point.” 39. The Commission did not submit observations on this point. Considerations of the Court 40. In the chapter on reparations, section “b) Training programs for the Armed Forces”, the Court considered the following: 272. The Commission indicated the need to implement permanent programs on human rights and international humanitarian law in the training schools of the Armed Forces to avoid the repetition of similar acts in future. 273. The State presented information on the different training courses on international human rights law and international humanitarian law implemented in the jurisdiction of the Military Police, the Ministry of Defense, and the National Commission for the Study and Application of International Humanitarian Law, and considered that it had taken measures relating to permanent training and dissemination on these subjects “that are in keeping with the[ir] study and dissemination.” 274. Although the Court has already ordered the Peruvian State to provide permanent training courses on human rights to members of the Police and the Armed Forces in the cases of La Cantuta and Anzualdo Castro, there is no record that, to date, these measures have been complied with fully. Given that education on human rights within the Armed Forces is crucial in order to guarantee the non-repetition of facts such as those of the instant case, the Court finds it pertinent to order the State to implement, within a reasonable time,