2 of the Rules of Procedure. In the request for interpretation, the State requested the “clarification of the [J]udgment […] considering that there are […] doubts arising thereto” as to the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the public release of the results of the criminal proceedings and the payment of costs and expenses. 2. On September 4, 2007, in accordance with Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following instructions given by the President of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Secretariat”) forwarded a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission" or "the Inter-American Commission") and to the representatives of the victims and their next of kin (hereinafter referred to as “the representatives”) and let them know that they had a non-postponable term until October 4, 2007 to submit the written arguments they considered pertinent. Furthermore, the State was reminded of the fact that, pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[t]he request for interpretation does not suspend the effect of the Judgment." On October 3 and 4, 2007 the representatives and the Commission respectively filed the above-mentioned written arguments. II COURT JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION 3. Article 67 of the Convention sets forth that [t]he 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. 4. In accordance with the above-mentioned article, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its own judgments. When performing the analysis of the request for interpretation, the Court must have, if possible, the same composition it had at the time of rendering the respective Judgment (Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). On this occasion, the Court judges are the same who rendered the Judgment of which the interpretation has been requested. III ADMISSIBILITY 5. It is within the Court’s functions to verify if the terms of the request for interpretation fulfill the requirements set forth in the applicable provisions, that is, Article 67 of the Convention and Articles 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 6. Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure sets forth that “judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 7. Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure –in its pertinent part- sets forth that: 1. The 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. […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment.