3 11. On this occasion, the Court was composed of those judges who had decided the merits of the case as well as the corresponding claim for compensatory damages of July 21, 1989. It is the latter judgment whose interpretation the Commission now seeks. 12. The composition of the Court was as prescribed by Article 54(3) of the Convention, which states that the judges of the Court shall continue to participate in those cases that they have begun to hear and that are still at the judgment stage. That provision must also be applied to the decision regarding the interpretation of judgments to which Articles 67 of the Convention and 48 of the Rules of Procedure refer because, under general rules of procedural law, a contentious case cannot be deemed to have been concluded until the judgment has been fully complied with. By analogy, it follows that the judges shall continue to participate when the case is at the enforcement stage. This is so, in particular, because the Court decided in its Judgment of July 21, 1989, that it would supervise compliance with the award of damages and that the case would not be deemed closed until compensation was paid in full. 13. Article 54(3) of the Convention is based on similar rules contained in the Statute of the International Court of Justice and in the (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Article 13(3) of that Statute provides, essentially, that after the judges of the International Court of Justice have been replaced, they shall nevertheless continue to hear the cases they had begun and see them through to their conclusion. Article 40(6) of the European Convention declares that, in the same circumstances, the judges of the European Court shall continue to hear the cases that have been entrusted to them. According to Article 56 of that Court's Rules of Procedure, [t]he request for interpretion shall be considered by the Chamber which gave the judgment and which shall, as far as possible, be composed of the same judges .... 14. The Court has jurisdiction to comply with the instant request for interpretation because Article 67 of the Convention provides that: 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. Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure, for its part, states the following: Article 48. Request for an Interpretation of a Judgment 1. Request for an interpretation allowed under the terms of Article 67 of the Convention shall be presented in twenty copies and shall indicate precisely the points in the operative provision of the judgment on which interpretation is requested. It shall be filed with the Secretary. 2. The Secretary shall communicate the request to any other party and, where appropriate, to the Commission, and shall invite them to submit, in twenty copies, any written comments within a period fixed by the President. 3. the Court. The nature of the proceedings shall be determined by