2 I INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On March 14, 2008, the State filed a request for interpretation of the Judgment on the Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs issued in the instant case on November 20, 20071 (hereinafter, “the Judgment” or “the Judgment on the Merits”), in accordance with Article 67 of the Convention and Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure. In its petition, the State requested the Court to: a) clarify “the criteria use[d] by [this] Tribunal to characterize an event as ‘independent’ or a ‘specific violation’”, in relation to the scope of the time limitation established by El Salvador in recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court; b) “confirm if provisional measures should continue [...] to the benefit of individuals not held […] to be victims by th[is] Tribunal”, specifically to the benefit of María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur, José Benjamín Cuellar Martínez, Matilde Guadalupe Hernández de Espinoza, José Roberto Burgos Viale and Ricardo Iglesias Herrera; and c) clarify “what the finding of the Court was on the statute of limitations applicable to the criminal action” with respect to the investigation of the death of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Giralt (hereinafter, “Mr. García Prieto”). 2. On March 24, 2008, in accordance with Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court delivered a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and the representatives of the victims (hereinafter, “the representatives”), informing them that they had a non-extendable deadline of May 5, 2008 to submit such written arguments as they may deem appropriate. Furthermore, the State was thereby reminded that, pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[the] request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment.” 3. On May 5, 2008, the Commission and the representatives respectively submitted the abovementioned written arguments. II JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 4. Under Article 67 of the American Convention,2 the Court is competent to interpret its own judgments. When considering a request for interpretation, the Court must 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 of Procedure). On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered Cf. Case of García-Prieto et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168. 1 2 Article 67 of the Convention sets forth that: [t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In the event 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.