composed of most of the judges who delivered the Judgment whose interpretation has been requested by the representatives. III ADMISSIBILITY 7. The Court must verify whether the request presented by the representatives complies with the requirements established in the norms applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely Article 67 of the Convention, cited above, and the pertinent parts of Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, which stipulate that: 1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits, or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which interpretation is requested. […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 8. Furthermore, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” that the 9. The Court observes that the representatives presented their request for interpretation of the Judgment within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention, because it was notified on December 10, 2012. Consequently, the request is admissible as regards the date on which it was presented. Regarding the other requirements, the Court will make the corresponding analysis when examining the content of this request for interpretation in the following chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 10. The Court will now analyze the representatives’ request to determine whether, based on the norms (supra paras. 5 and 7) and the standards developed in its case law, it is in order to clarify the meaning and scope of any element of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs. To this end, it will examine the issues raised by the representatives, as well as the allegations and arguments presented by both the State and the Commission. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 11. The representatives considered, first, that the territorial limitation established in paragraph 56 of the Judgment “appears to contradict the decision of the Court to apply Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure.” They based this assertion on the following arguments: (1) the massive nature of the events would require flexibility in the determination of the victims of the case, and (2) the State had acknowledged that the facts affected the places expressly excluded by the Court. 12. Regarding the first argument, they stated that the massacres mainly affected the places named in the Judgment; however, owing to their indiscriminate and massive nature, 3