31.
Based on the foregoing, the second question posed by the State is inadmissible
because the judgment is clear as regards the elements that were assessed in order to
determine the amount of the fair compensation, and the Court considers that the State is
attempting to re-evaluate matters that have been decided by the Court, without any
possibility that the ruling can be modified or expanded,9 in accordance with Articles 67 of
the American Convention and 68 of its Rules of Procedure.
VI
OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS
32.
Therefore,
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3) and
68 of its Rules of Procedure,
DECIDES:
Unanimously
1.
To declare the request for interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs in
this case filed by the State admissible in the terms of paragraphs 10 to 12 of this judgment
on interpretation.
2.
To reject as inadmissible the State's question on the domestic proceedings in relation
to the ruling of the Inter-American Court in its judgment of March 3, 2011, in the terms of
paragraphs 18 to 20 of this judgment.
3.
To reject as inadmissible the State’s question with regard to the substantiation of the
amount of the compensation determined by the Inter-American Court, in the terms of
paragraphs 25 to 31 of this judgment, insofar as it is not in keeping with the provisions of
Article 67 of the Convention or the Rules of Procedure.
4.
To require the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to notify this
judgment to the Republic of Ecuador, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and
the representative of the victim.
Done, at Bogotá, Colombia, on August 29, 2011, in the Spanish and English languages, the
Spanish version being authentic.
merits, reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 12, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of
the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 12.
9
Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra note 2, para. 16;
Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits,
reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 11, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the
judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 11.
8