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.

Select target paragraph3