limitation” 3 established by the Court in paragraph 56 of the Judgment “appears to contradict the Court’s decision to apply Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure.” Therefore, they considered that the Court should clarify “the inconsistencies that [would] arise from the territorial limitation established in paragraph 56 of its Judgment in relation to the State’s obligation to identify all the victims of the massacres who were not determined in the Judgment.” On the other hand, they considered that, in view of the fact that the Court had ordered the State to continue to implement fully the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote,” the territorial limitation established in the Judgment “could lead to complications during the process of monitoring this measure.” Consequently, they asked the Court to clarify the meaning, scope and relationship between full implementation of paragraph 56 of its Judgment and the elaboration of the said List, in order “to conclude that it was for the State, based on the investigations that it conducts into the facts of the case, and within the framework of the List requested by the Court, to determine those individuals who should be considered victims, without the said territorial limitations representing an obstacle to this.” They added that the said clarifications would act not only as a measure of reparation for the victims by acknowledging them as such, but would provide greater certainty to the parties and would facilitate the monitoring of the Judgment by establishing clearly all the measures of reparation that the State must fulfill in the case. The representatives attached two annexes to this brief. 4 3. On March 18, 2013, on the instruction of the President of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court forwarded the said communication to the Republic of El Salvador (hereinafter also “the Salvadoran State,” “the State” or “El Salvador”) and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”). In addition, the State and the Inter-American Commission were informed that they could present any written arguments they deemed pertinent by April 18, 2013, at the latest. 4. On April 18, 2013, the State and the Inter-American Commission presented their respective arguments concerning the representatives’ request for interpretation. II COMPETENCE 5. 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. 6. According to this article, the Court is competent to interpret its judgments. Under Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, in order to examine a request for interpretation and reach the corresponding decision the Court must, if possible, have the same composition that it had when it delivered the respective Judgment. On this occasion, the Court is 3 The representatives referred to what the Court had established in paragraph 56 of the Judgment as a “territorial limitation,” because it determined that the Court would not consider as victims those persons who had suffered a possible violation of their rights in places that were not included within the factual framework of this case, unless the evidence showed that, at the time of the facts, they were in one of the places that were the subject of this case. 4 Annex 1 entitled “Map identifying the area affected by the massacre,” and annex 2 entitled “Map of the municipality of Arambala.” 2