concerning the scope of the State obligation in relation to the implementation of this measure. 23. Consequently, the Court will now proceed to analyze the two groups of arguments presented by the representatives in the context of the request for interpretation and, as appropriate, to provide the pertinent clarifications and explanations in order to contribute to the effective implementation of the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment. without expanding the scope of these measures. The Court will merely clarify the formulation of its considerations and eliminate any doubts about the original scope of the Judgment as decided by the Court, which, it is recalled is final and may not be appealed (supra para. 5). To this end, the Court will divide its analysis into two parts regarding: (a) the territorial delimitation established in paragraph 56 of the Judgment for the determination of victims, and (b) the State’s obligation to determine other persons who should be considered victims under the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote.” A. Territorial delimitation established in paragraph 56 of the Judgment for the determination of victims 24. With regard to the alleged contradiction asserted by the representatives between the application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure to the case and the determination of the territorial criteria contained in paragraph 56 of the Judgment, this Court finds it pertinent to recall that the said article of the Rules of Procedure constitutes an exception to the representatives’ impediment to inform the Court of presumed victims other than those identified in the Commission’s merits report. 13 In other words, it grants the Court the power to decide whether it will consider persons who are not included in the merits report as victims in cases of massive or collective violations. The exceptional circumstance contemplated in Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure does not mean that there are no criteria whatsoever for the clear identification of the victims in a case before the Court, 14 or that the difficulties that arose in the proceedings before the Commission to identify one or some of the presumed victims should remain unresolved in the proceedings before the Court. 15 To the contrary, it is incumbent on the Court, in the exercise of its jurisdictional function and in order to ensure legal certainty, to adopt a decision on the case by handing down its judgment, which includes the persons who it will consider victims or, otherwise, the criteria for determining them. 25. The Court recalls that, when delivering its judgment in this case, in application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes that “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case 13 Cf. Case of the Massacres of Río Negro v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, paras. 49 and 51 14 For example, in the Case of Nadege Dorzema v. Dominican Republic, even though it declared that the application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure was in order, the Court decided, with regard to the eight persons presented by the representatives and the Commission as “other victims not identified in the case, but supposedly named ab initio by the State,” that they would not be considered presumed victims in the said Judgment, given that it had insufficient information to identify these individuals at that procedural stage, because there was no document among the evidence submitted by the parties that would allow it to determine clearly the name and conditions of the presumed victims, or their relationship to the facts of the case. Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 34. 15 The Rules of Procedure establish that the Court will decide at the opportune moment whether it considers them victims (Article 35(2)). 8