6 16. To analyze the admissibility of the request for interpretation submitted by the State, on March 1, 2005, and to clarify the meaning or scope of the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, the Court shall subsequently analyze the three aspects submitted by the State (supra para. 5), but in the inverse order to the order submitted, starting with the third aspect, (“the reasons that led the Honorable Court to establish the amounts that the State must pay for compensation for non pecuniary damages”) subsequently referring to the other aspects: compensation imposed by the Court for non pecuniary damages, in favor of María Victoria Cruz Franco and the distribution of the compensation amount. VI ON THE COMPENSATION AMOUNTS FIXED BY THE COURT 17. Arguments of the State a) “express[ed] its concern regarding the reasons that led the Honorable Court to establish the amounts the State must pay for compensation, since it seems these sums are not in accordance with the alleged damages caused” since in para. 130 of the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, the Court established that it could not presume that the right to life was affected, and in addition, Judge ad hoc, in his dissenting opinion, indicated his disagreement with all resolution issues on reparations because he considered that there had not been a violation in this Case; and b) the aforementioned ruling was primarily based “on the fact that El Salvador was sentenced [for] violating Article[s] 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention […,] in conjunction with article 1(1), and that notwithstanding any individual analysis of the judicial proceedings filed in the First Instance Court of Chalatenango,[…] regarding the alleged abduction from personal care of minors Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz, comprised of 503 useful pages, it can be stated that from the date the claim was filed it has been dealt with in accordance with the criminal law in force […]”. 18. Arguments of the Commission a) “ The State […] does not attempt that [the Court] interpret the meaning or scope of the judgment[…], but rather seeks a review and reconsideration of the final and unappealable judgment entered by the Court, because it disagrees with its content.” There is no situation that could be regarded as deserving the possibility of a review of the Judgment. “And therefore this is an appeal, inadmissible in accordance with the Court’s procedures”; and b) Regarding the compensation amounts, “the criteria that the Court used to base the concept of non material damages in paragraphs 156 to 161 of the Judgment, whose interpretation is sought by the State, is clear and sufficient”. Tamayo. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15.