20. In the above paragraph, the Court established that the State must provide the medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment required by Manuela’s parents. The Court underlines that the representatives’ request does not refer to the meaning or scope of the judgment pursuant to Article 67 the American Convention, because it refers to the inclusion of certain victims as beneficiaries of a measure of reparation. 8 Consequently, the Court considers that the measure of rehabilitation ordered in the judgment is sufficiently clear and precise and that the request for interpretation filed by the representatives is incompatible with the conditions indicated in Article 67 the American Convention. Therefore, the Court concludes that this aspect of the representatives’ request is inappropriate. 21. The Court highlights the State’s willingness to provide medical care to Manuela’s sons based on its “general obligation to guarantee the right to health of the public in general.” 9 In this regard, the Court recalls that, in its judgment, it declared the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the right to personal integrity of Manuela’s elder son and younger son as a result of what happened to their mother. Therefore, and in light of the particular circumstances of this specific case, the Court invites El Salvador to continue, in good faith, providing the medical care required by Manuela’s sons. C. Calculation of the time frame for initiating monitoring of compliance with the measure of reparation concerning the immediate adoption of the measures required to ensure comprehensive medical attention for women who suffer obstetric emergencies C.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 22. The representatives indicated that, based on the wording of paragraph 299 of the judgment, it is unclear when the Court will begin monitoring compliance with the measure of reparation concerning the immediate adoption of the measures required to ensure comprehensive medical attention for women who suffer obstetric emergencies. In this regard, they asked whether the Court “begins to monitor the said measure as of notification of the judgment, or from the moment at which the State adopts the necessary measures” to comply with it. 23. The State indicated that calculation of the three-year time frame for monitoring this measure began on the working day following notification of the judgment. In addition, it stressed that the Court had ordered the State to take such measures immediately and, therefore, “the Court has not decided to grant the State a period of time during which it could consider the implementation of this measure.” Consequently, El Salvador understood that “in its first general report on the judgment, for which the Court had established a time frame of one year as of its notification, [the State] must report on compliance with this measure, which would then form part of the monitoring proceeding.” C.2 Considerations of the Court 24. The Court will now transcribe paragraph 299 of the judgment: Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 25. 8 Cf. Observations presented by the State on the request for interpretation, dated April 4, 2022 (interpretation file, folio 28), and photographs provided by the representatives regarding the medical care received by Manuela’s sons (interpretation file, folios 10 to 14). 9 6