9 already been stated, the compensation that was fixed for loss of earnings implies that notion to a certain degree. That is why the Court decided, in the operative paragraph of the judgment that refers to paragraph 53, to employ a method for preserving the sums of money owed to the minor daughter of Saúl Godínez Cruz, namely the establishment of a trust fund with the Central Bank of Honduras under the most favorable conditions permitted by Honduran banking practice. 31. The Court interprets the expression under the most favorable conditions as referring to the fact that any act or measure by the trustee must ensure that the amount assigned maintains its purchasing power and generates sufficient earnings or dividends to increase it; the phrase permitted by Honduran banking practice indicates that the trustee must faithfully perform his task as would a good head of family and that he has the power and the obligation to select diverse types of investment, whether through deposits in strong currencies, such as the United States dollar or others, the purchase of mortgage bonds, real estate, guaranteed securities or any other investment recommended by Honduran banking practice, precisely as ordered by the Court. 32. The Court at a given moment shared the concern expressed by the Commission in its briefs and at the hearing, insofar as it wished to ensure that the amount payable to Saúl Godínez Cruz´ minor daughter would maintain its purchasing power until she reached the age of twenty-five and even beyond that. It was for this reason that the Court decided to place that sum in a trust fund, an institution that, unlike regular bank accounts, is designed to maintain and increase the real value of its assets. 33. The judgment orders that the compensation be paid either in one single payment or in six consecutive monthly installments. The Commission requests that the Government be obliged to periodically disburse additional sums in order to maintain constant the value of the original assets, for as long as the trust remains in effect. It is evident that this request, as presented, would impose on the Government an obligation that is not provided for in the judgment. Consequently, since the Commission's request thus exceeds the scope of a mere interpretation, the Court must reject it. V 34. In its brief, received by the Court on July 6, 1990, the Commission expanded its request for interpretation of the judgment. The Commission emphasized that, despite the fact that eight months had elapsed since the damages became due and payable, the Government had still not complied with the judgment. It went on to request that, in order to compensate for the consequences of this delay, the Court order the payment of: a) interest for such delay and b) the adjustment of the purchasing power of the unit of currency in order to bring its current value on a par with what it was worth at the time that the payment should have been made. 35. With regard to this brief, the Court must determine, in the first place, whether it is empowered to admit the request as presented. 36. The Court notes that, according to Article 67 of the Convention, it is empowered to interpret its judgments whenever there is disagreement as to the meaning or scope thereof. In the Commission's brief now under consideration no mention is made of any aspects of the judgment of the Court whose meaning or scope are in