2 I INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION AND THEIR PURPOSE 1. On February 7, 2006, the Court delivered the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs in the instant case. 2. The Judgment of the Court was notified to the parties on March 1, 2006. 3. On May 29, 2006, Manuel Saavedra-Rivera and Héctor Paredes-Márquez, who are representatives other than the common intervener, filed two requests for interpretation of the Judgment of the Court, according to Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 4. On May 30, 2006, Pablo Gonza Tito and Marcelino Isidro Huere, who are representatives other than the common intervener, filed a request for interpretation of the Judgment of the Court, according to Articles 67 and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 5. In the above mentioned requests for interpretation, the petitioners addressed several issues and made inquiries on the following matters: a) persons who are victims in the case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. according to the Judgment of the Court and requests for inclusion of victims; and b) terms to make payment of non pecuniary damages and reimburse costs and expenses according to the Judgment of the Court. II JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 6. Under Article 67 of the Convention, [t]he 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. 7. Pursuant to the above-cited provision, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its judgments and, when considering a request for interpretation, it must, whenever possible, be composed of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought (see Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges 1 who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT With the exception of Judge Oliver Jackman who, due to reasons beyond his control, was unable to attend the meeting. 1