Court in due course. 18. Consequently, the Court determines that the issue was decided in the judgment and it is not admissible to seek modification of the compensation ordered through a request for interpretation. B. Request for interpretation regarding the compensation for nonpecuniary damages in relation to the alleged effect resulting from the content of Decree 1025/96 B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 19. The representative asked that the content of paragraph 314 of the judgment be clarified, wherein it indicated that “due to the lack of specific arguments, no issue related to Decree 1025/96 ‘and its derivations’ was analyzed, so the request for compensation in this regard [became] inadmissible.” He stated that in its Report on the Merits, the InterAmerican Commission indicated that “[t]he allegations regarding the failure to provide reparations for the alleged harm caused by [the content of the decree] [...] are an integral part of the subject of the petition submitted in 2005.” He stated that the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence referred "specifically and separately" to the aforementioned decree, in the sense of "substantiating in detail the origin and estimated amount of the indemnities" necessary. He added that the aforementioned "lack of specific arguments [...] is not supported by the proceedings," and therefore requested clarification of what was considered in the judgment and, consequently, that "compensation be ordered in that regard." 20. The State indicated that “no injuries were alleged before the contentious jurisdiction of the Court regarding [D]ecree 1025/96 and, therefore, the [...] Court did not find or declare violations of rights resulting from the aforementioned decree." It added that “this is independent of whether the decree was mentioned during the proceedings before the Commission, [...] since the truth is that no violations derived from the decree were alleged or declared before the Court, and therefore, no compensation related to it was established." It asked that the request for interpretation be dismissed. 21. The Commission, for its part, indicated based on the case law of the Court that a request for interpretation "cannot be used as a means of appealing the decision whose interpretation is sought." B.2. Considerations of the Court 22. The Court recalls that paragraph 314 of the judgment stated as follows: It should be noted that this Judgment contains no analysis of matters related to Decree 1025/96 “and its derivations” due to lack of specific arguments, so the request for compensation in this regard becomes inadmissible. 9 23. Also, footnote 327—after the cited paragraph—indicates as follows: As indicated by the Commission in Report No. 56/19, in the petition filed on November 11, 2005, the representative alleged a “failure to provide reparations for the damage caused by the fourth whereas clause of Decree 1025/96.” The Commission reached no conclusion on the alleged violation and did not issue recommendations in this regard. The non-existence of the alleged violation was reiterated by the Commission in its brief submitting the case. For its part, in the 9 Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 314. 5