I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On November 21, 2022, the Inter-American Court delivered the judgment in this case, which was notified to the parties and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) on January 31, 2023. 2. On February 20, 2023, the State submitted a request for interpretation of the judgment. Paraguay requested “the rectification of an error in the calculation of the amount of money established as compensation for pecuniary damage.” 3. On May 5, 2023, pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and following the instructions of the Presidency of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court forwarded the aforementioned request for interpretation to the victim’s representative (hereinafter “the representative”) 1 and to the Inter-American Commission, granting them until May 19, 2023, to submit any written observations they deemed pertinent. On May 19, 2023, the representative and the Commission submitted their respective observations. II JURISDICTION 4. Article 67 of the American Convention establishes: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 5. Pursuant to this article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its judgments. According to Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, when examining requests for interpretation and making decisions in this regard, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the original judgment. On this occasion, the Court is made up of the same judges that delivered the judgment whose interpretation is being sought. III ADMISSIBILITY 6. It is the responsibility of this Court to verify that the request submitted by the State meets the requirements established in the rules applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely, Article 67 of the Convention cited previously and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure. 2 Furthermore, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 1 2 The legal representation of the victim was exercised by Jacinto Santa María. This article states, where pertinent: “1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which interpretation is requested. […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment.” 2