2

JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT

1.

Article 67 of the Convention provides that
[The] 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

Pursuant to the abovementioned article, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its own
judgments and, when considering a request for interpretation, the Court shall be
composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment of
which the interpretation is being sought. (Article 59(3) of the Rules). In this case, the
Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the
interpretation is being sought by the representatives.

II
INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND ITS PURPOSE

2.
On March 2, 2005, and pursuant to Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the
Rules, the representatives filed a petition, in English language, for the interpretation of
the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs. On March 11, 2005 the
representatives submitted the translation into Spanish of such petition.
3.

In the request for interpretation, the representatives stated that:
a)
as regards the alleged violation of Article 9 of the Convention, “the
Court, by majority vote, concluded that the description of the crime of
cooperation with terrorism does not present the flaws pointed out in connection
with the crime of treason, but […] it did not state[d] the reason for such a
conclusion”, therefore they asked “whether the Judgment sustains that the
evidence of a typical description of terrorism is enough to ground a sentence for
cooperation with terrorism, or if the description included in Article 2 of Decree
Law 25,475 is the definition of terrorism;”
b)
in the light of the decision of the Court in the case of Loayza-Tamayo,
“[the] second suit that, after the acquittal granted by the Supreme Council of
Military Justice (Consejo Supremo de Justicia Militar) was brought [against Mrs.
Lori Berenson] before the Anti-Terrorism Civil Division on the same facts,
violated Article 8.4 of the Convention;”
c)
the Court should clarify whether “the finding of the Court […] that the
formal motion of [Mrs.] Lori Berenson to challenge [a judge due to his/her
alleged bias as to the case], filed during the [civil] proceedings, violated the
procedural law of [the Illustrated State of] Peru [(hereinafter “the State” or
“Peru”)], -which required the filing of such motions to be made before the
commencement of the suit-, means that the procedural legal rules of Peru can
set aside [the right to be tried by an independent and impartial judge]
guarantee[d] by Article 8(1) of the Convention;”

Select target paragraph3