However, the State argued that “the salaries received by Mr. Nissen Pessolani from September 2021 to November 2022 were not taken into account” and that these amounts should be deducted from the compensation awarded to Mr. Nissen Pessolani. Therefore, it requested “that the sum of USD$ 243,000 recorded in favor of Mr. Nissen Pessolani […], be rectified and set at USD$225,921.80.” 12. The representative argued that “any amount that the Court has ordered to be paid to the victim as compensation, […] should be interpreted as an amount that the Court itself considered fair, regardless of whether or not the number in question has arisen from the strict application of some mathematical mechanism.” He added that the State submitted “new evidence of recent salaries […] which had not been included in the file and which […], since they did not exist in the case file, were not taken into account at the time of the judgment.” He also argued that “the data provided by the State included in some cases alleged ‘salaries’ overlapping in time, and in other cases payments received simultaneously in different institutions, and even confused ‘salaries’ with professional fees,” adding that “a consultant […] is not a public employee.” Therefore, he asked that “the inconsistencies and duplications contained in [the] annexes also be taken into consideration […] and thus reverse the deduction of the amounts paid for professional fees for independent consulting that should not be excluded from the compensation for pecuniary damage.” 13. The Commission observed that the State is seeking “that the Court recalculate the amount of compensation awarded to the victim for pecuniary damage, based on information that was not available to the Court when it issued the judgment in this case.” Consequently, it “consider[ed] that it is up to the Court to analyze the validity of such information and to decide accordingly.” 2. Considerations of the Court 14. Regarding the measure of compensation ordered in the judgment, which is the subject of this request for interpretation by the State, the Court recalls that with respect to the pecuniary damage it considered the following: Throughout the international proceedings, the representative presented several claims for compensation for pecuniary damage, including different ways of calculating lost wages, with amounts ranging from USD$397,257 to USD$4,443,048. This Court determined that the dismissal of Mr. Nissen Pessolani was arbitrary, for which reason he is entitled to back wages. According to the representative and the evidence presented by the State, Mr. Nissen Pessolani’s monthly salary as a prosecutor was, at the time of his dismissal, 11,503,600 guaraníes (eleven million five hundred and three thousand six hundred guaraníes). It was proven that that Mr. Pessolani was dismissed on June 16, 2004. However, according to the victim’s wife’s statement during the public hearing, after his dismissal “he worked in the Ministry of Public Works, where he created an Internal Affairs Unit. Then he worked at ESSAP for a few months and from there he was commissioned to an Anticorruption Secretariat and today he works for SENATUR.” Likewise, the State, in its annexes to the Answer submitted a report from the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Civil Service Secretariat, which established the functions, categories, positions and remuneration received by Mr. Nissen Pessolani in the public sector from 2003 to date. Thus, these periods during which Mr. Nissen Pessolani was gainfully employed in the public sector should be excluded for the calculation of the back pay. Therefore, only the periods between his dismissal (June 16, 2004), and the date of issuance of this judgment will be taken into account, discounting the amounts he has already received from the State for work performed in the public sector. Thus, the payment of the sum of USD$ 4