2. The interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs (hereinafter “the interpretation of the judgment”) delivered on July 7, 2009, whereby it decided, inter alia: […] 2. To determine the meaning and scope of the provisions of operative paragraphs 13, 15, 18, 19 and 20 and paragraph 230 of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs issued on November 27, 2008, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 23, 27, 28, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44 and 50 of the [...] judgment. […] 3. The order of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the order of the President”) of April 29, 2010, in which he convened a joint private hearing on eight Colombian cases in relation to monitoring compliance with the reparation measure concerning medical and psychological care ordered in these cases. The hearing was held on May 19, 2010, at the seat of the Court in San Jose, Costa Rica. 4. The brief of May 5, 2009, whereby the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) reported that “on April 22, 2009, [...] the selfconfessed member of the paramilitary, Francisco Enrique Villalba, was murdered,” as well as the information provided on this matter by the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State” or “Colombia”) on May 22, 2009, and the observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) of June 3, 2009. 5. The brief of December 18, 2009, whereby the State reported on compliance with the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1). 6. The brief of November 9, 2010, whereby the representatives of the victims presented their observations on the report submitted by the State (supra having seen paragraph 5). 7. The brief of April 26, 2010, whereby the representatives of the victims presented their observations on the report submitted by the State (supra having seen paragraph 5). 8. The order of the President of December 21, 2010, convening the State, the representatives, and the Inter-American Commission to a private hearing in order to obtain complete and updated information from the State concerning compliance with the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1), as well as to hear the respective observations of the Commission and the representatives. 9. The briefs of January 18, February 1 and 24, 2011, in which the State reported on compliance with the judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1). 10. The brief of February 22, 2011, whereby the Commission presented its observations on the information submitted by the State (supra having seen paragraph 9). 11. The note of the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) of February 23, 2011, advising that the observations of the representatives on the information submitted by the State (supra having seen paragraph 9) had not been received. 2