7 28. In the fifth point, the State requested the Court to clarify whether it should consider that the judgment on the merits corroborated or modified the criterion sustained in the Genie Lacayo and Loayza Tamayo cases or the criterion sustained in the Castillo Petruzzi et al case, with regard to the military jurisdiction in relation to civilians. 29. The Commission stated that the cases mentioned by the State involved specific situations that were substantially different from that of Mr. Cesti Hurtado, so that it was not necessary to discuss them. 30. The Court manifests its considerations and criteria through judgments and decisions. Analysis of these and the comparative study of its jurisprudence are eminently academic tasks, beyond the functions of this Court. The State’s fifth query is not a request for interpretation of the judgment itself, but rather of the latter in comparison with other judgments delivered by this Court. This comparative task is outside the provisions of Article 67 of the Convention. Therefore, the Court believes that it is not in order to proceed to interpret this point and thus, it will not make a pronouncement on the matter. X ROLE OF THE AMICI CURIAE 31. In the last point of its request, the State refers to the fact that Heriberto Manuel Benítez Rivas had presented a brief, in the capacity of amicus curiae, and had also taken part in the proceeding as a witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission, and asked the Court about the “legitimacy” of a persons acting in this dual role in a proceeding before this Court. 32. On this point, the Commission stated that, while the Court had referred to the presentations made by the amici curiae, “in no way [was it saying] that it ha[d] taken them into consideration; much less, that it had use[d] their arguments to motivate the judgment. This reference [was] therefore merely by way of information.” 33. The Court considers that the State’s sixth request is outside the scope of interpretation of judgment as contemplated in Article 67 of the American Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, this Court will not make a pronouncement on the matter. XI For the above reasons, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS pursuant to Article 67 of the Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure DECIDES: unanimously,