4 13. The Court must now analyze whether the substantial aspects of the request for interpretation comply with the applicable rules. In this respect, Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that [t]he request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. Pursuant to this Article, the Court will proceed to interpret those aspects of its judgment on which there is a doubt about the meaning or scope. VI THE FREEDOM OF MR. CESTI HURTADO 14. In the request for interpretation, the State asked for the interpretation of the first ruling of the judgment on the merits in relation to the eighth ruling of the judgment. In this respect, the State requested that the Court interpret whether the judgment on the merits ha[d] required the immediate liberty of Captain Cesti Hurtado or [whether], to the contrary, [...] it [did] not impede the aggrieved parties from filing a complaint, prior to his liberation, in the jurisdiction that [had] been declared competent in this respect, in order to prevent the execution of the judgment leading to the situation of an irreversible evasion of justice by Captain Cesti Hurtado. During the public hearing, the State requested the Court to clarify the eighth ruling of the said judgment in relation to paragraph 129 of the judgment. 15. In this respect, the Court’s first ruling stated that [...] the State violated Articles 7.6 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights with regard to Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, in the terms established in paragraphs 123 to 133 of this judgment, and […] order[ed Peru to comply with] the decision of the Chamber of Public Law of Lima of February 12, 1997, on the petition for habeas corpus filed by Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado. In the eighth ruling, the Court stated [...] that the proceeding against Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado under the military justice system [was] incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and [..] order[ed] the State to annul this action and all the effects that may derive from it. In paragraph 129 the Court stated that [t]he decision made by the Public Law Chamber on the situation of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado concluded the matter that concerns this Court in relation to Articles 7 and 25 of the Convention, because a tribunal with competence on protective measures adopted a final, unappealable decision conceding habeas corpus to the petitioner and protecting him from the objective threat to his liberty resulting from procedures initiated under military jurisdiction. This decision does not impede the competent authorities, if appropriate, from making decisions on the criminal responsibility of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado with regard to the illegal acts attributed to him. Such decisions do not concern the Court, but rather the competent domestic tribunals. 16. The Inter-American Commission indicated that the first question was beyond the scope of the Court’s competence and, consequently, a pronouncement was not in order. Moreover, the Commission declared that the judgment on the merits referred