5 be a valid precedent for future judgments or agreements based on amicable solutions? What if the compensatory amount, due to the little evidence there would be, increases excessively up to the point of stripping an important part of the Ecuadorian population of their social rights?” The State also asked the Court to answer the following questions: “What would be the instrument of origin of the tribunal’s jurisdiction? What procedural regulations would apply to this independent domestic arbitration procedure? Where can we find the statutory regulations for the objection to the arbitrators? Where can we find the impossibility records of a mediation?” Besides, the State considered it “contradictory[] that the Court set, on one hand, based on the equity principle an amount of money due to the loss of value of the Plumavit factory and, on the other, it acknowledges the complexity of said quantification” since “one cannot use an equity criterion and, at the same time, expect to transfer the valuative load to an arbitration tribunal that would use different criteria to those set by the Inter-American Court.” 18. In this regard, the Commission argued that, “the request presented by the State does not comply with the normative requirements necessary to be considered a request for interpretation and therefore it should not be received.” Additionally, it considered that “the brief the State presented to the Court does not request an interpretation by the latter of the sense or scope of the judgment […] but instead it seeks a revision and reconsideration of the final and unappealable judgment issued by the Court because it does not agree with certain aspects of the same.” It added that in this case none of the situations in which the jurisprudence of the Court has admitted the possibility of revision is present. Finally, it stated that the State’s “declarations do not coincide with what is stated in Article 68(1) of the American Convention and with the basic principle of the State’s international responsibility, supported by international jurisprudence, according to which the States must comply with their international obligations in good faith (pacta sunt servanda).” 19. The representatives argued that “the claim of the Ecuadorian State requesting that the arbitration procedure […] be carried out pursuant to domestic law lacks all grounds,” since the judgment itself states that said procedure will be carried out “pursuant to applicable domestic legislation […] as long as it does not contravene what is stipulated in this Judgment” and because Article 27 of the Vienna Convention prohibits invoking domestic law “as a justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” 20. The Court verifies that the State has repeatedly expressed, in its communications of January 18, February 18, February 27, April 2, and May 7, 2008, its refusal to comply with the reparation measure ordered by the Tribunal, which constitutes the object of the present request for interpretation. The State acknowledges explicitly that it is presenting a challenge to the judgment, when it holds that it “hopes that the Court, if possible, will rectify its error or at least will justify its decision” (emphasis added) and that “[w]e must not forget that in Law things are undone just as they are done and an unsubstantiated measure such as the one ordered must admit the exceptional use of a corrective measure not anticipated but necessary” (emphasis added). Based on this, the Court must declare the request for interpretation of the Judgment inadmissible, since the State is presenting a request for a revision of the reparation determined by the Tribunal. 21. Similarly, this Court has stated that an appeal for review is admissible in exceptional cases, when a fact that has come to light after the judgment has been delivered affects the contents of the decision, or reveals a substantial defect in it. 5 5 Cfr. Case of Genie Lacayo. Application for Judicial Review of the Judgment of January 29, 1997. Order of the Court of September 13, 1997. Series C No. 45, paras. 10 to 12, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 15.