I INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On March 3, 2011, the Court issued the judgment on reparations and costs, which was notified to the parties on March 23, 2011. 2. On June 2, 2011, the State submitted a request for interpretation of the judgment, in keeping with Articles 67 of the Convention and 68 of the Rules of Procedure. The State asked the Court to interpret the judgment on reparations and costs specifically with regard to: (a) the situation of the domestic proceedings in light of the judgment of the InterAmerican Court of March 3, 2011, owing to the need for an international ruling on how the domestic proceedings should proceed in relation to the purpose of the litigation that, in a subsidiary manner, was being examined by the said Court, and (b) the ”substantiation of the amount of the compensation established by the Court.” 3. On June 28, 2011, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) forwarded a copy of the request for interpretation to the representatives of the victim (hereinafter “the representatives”) and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”). In addition, it informed the representatives and the Inter-American Commission that they should submit any written arguments they deemed pertinent, by July 28, 2011, at the latest. 4. On July 26, 2011, the representatives submitted their written arguments and asked the Court to reject the request for interpretation of the judgment of March 3, 2011, because it was “inadmissible and contrary to the norms of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. 5. For its part, on July 28, 2011, the Commission submitted its written arguments and indicated “that there is no ambiguity in the judgment or any issue of inter-American public order that must be clarified; consequently, it had no observations to make in this regard.” II COMPETENCE AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 6. Article 67 of the Convention establishes that: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 7. Pursuant to this article, the Court is competent to interpret its own rulings. In order to examine the request for interpretation and make the corresponding ruling, if possible, the Court must have the same composition as when it handed down the judgment in question according to Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who handed down the judgment interpretation of which has been requested by the State.1 1 When handing down the judgment on reparations and costs, the Court was composed of the following judges: Diego García-Sayán, President, Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Judge; Sergio García Ramírez, Judge; Manuel E. 2