[…] it finds it necessary to order the State to take forthwith the measures required to ensure comprehensive medical attention for women who suffer obstetric emergencies. The Court will monitor compliance with this measure for three years. 25. Furthermore, the Court established the following in the twentieth operative paragraph of the judgment: The State, within one year of notification of this judgment, shall provide the Court with a report on the measures taken to comply with it, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 274 of th[e] judgment. 26. In light of the representatives’ request and the comments of the State, the Court deems it pertinent to clarify the calculation of the three-year period established in the judgment for monitoring compliance with the measure ordered in its paragraph 299. First, the Court reiterates that, following notification of the judgment, the State was obliged to take forthwith “the measures required to ensure comprehensive medical attention for women who suffer obstetric emergencies.” That said, the Court established that it would monitor compliance with this measure of reparation for three years. In this regard, the Court clarifies that calculation of this period will start when El Salvador forwards its first report on compliance with the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment, pursuant to its twentieth operative paragraph. IV OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 27. Therefore, THE COURT, pursuant to Article 67 the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3), and 68 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: unanimously, 1. To declare admissible the request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs delivered in the Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador presented by the victims’ representatives, pursuant to paragraph 8 of this interpretation judgment. 2. To clarify, by interpretation, the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs in the Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, in relation to the time frames for Manuela’s sons to indicate their interest in receiving educational scholarships, pursuant to paragraph 16 of this interpretation judgment. 3. To reject, as inappropriate, the request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs delivered in the Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador presented by the victims’ representatives in relation to the scope of the measure of rehabilitation, pursuant to paragraphs 20 and 21 of this interpretation judgment. 4. To clarify, by interpretation, the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs in the Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador in relation to the calculation of the time frame for the Court to monitor the measure of reparation ordered in paragraph 299 of the judgment, pursuant to paragraph 26 of this interpretation judgment. 7