2 the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. In accordance with the article mentioned, the Court is competent to interpret its judgments and, when considering the request for interpretation, it shall have the same composition, whenever possible, that it had when it delivered the respective judgment (Article 58.3 of the Rules of Procedure). On this occasion, the Court is composed of judges who pronounced the judgment on the merits, interpretation of which has been requested by Peru. II INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2. On October 13, 1999, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the State submitted a request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits. Furthermore, Peru stated that “the suspension of the effect of the judgment prohibited by Article 58.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court [was] not applicable in the instant case [...] insofar as the present request for interpretation and clarification related [...] to aspects regarding execution of the judgment.” III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 3. In a note of October 15, 1999, the Secretariat of the Court forwarded a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and, pursuant to Article 58.2 of the Rules of Procedure, invited it to submit its comments on the request for interpretation filed by Peru, by December 15, 1999, at the latest. 4. On October 27, 1999, the Commission submitted a brief in which it requested the Court to take into consideration “that the State [was] incurring in noncompliance with the judgment [on the merits]” since, as at that date, it had not liberated Mr. Cesti Hurtado or complied with the rulings of the Court in the said judgment. In this respect, the Commission declared that, as the State had not complied immediately with the judgment on the merits it should not “file the [...] request for interpretation because this [was] absolutely disallowed by the provisions of Article 58.4 of the Rules of Procedure of the H[onorable] Court.” 5. On November 19, 1999, pursuant to Articles 29.2 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court issued an order in which it declared that the request for interpretation submitted by the State did not suspend the effect of the judgment on the merits and authorized the President of the Court to invite the parties to a public audience on the interpretation. 6. On December 6, 1999, the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) issued an order in which he invited the State and the Commission to a public hearing to be held on January 25, 2000, at the seat of the Court in order to hear the points of view of both parties on the request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits filed by the State.