4 13. Given the foregoing, the Court observes that the request for interpretation complies with the terms of Article 67 of the Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure and thus declares it admissible. Accordingly, the Court will proceed to interpret those aspects of its judgment on whose meaning and scope there is disagreement. V SCOPE OF THE REPARATIONS Arguments of the Commission and of Mr. Ivcher 14. The Commission made reference to the Peruvian State’s interpretation to the effect that the reparation ordered by this Court for Mr. Ivcher would not include compensation that would constitute restitutio in integrum for the damages caused by the violation of which he was victim. 15. For his part, Mr. Ivcher stated that in the judgment on the merits, the Court established the reparations owed to the victim in the form of moral damages and court costs and expenses, and did not fix a figure for compensation of material damages (supra 5). The State’s arguments 16. In its brief of July 2, 2001, Peru argued that the judgment on the merits was clear in the sense that it did not contain any mandate ordering or requiring payment of compensation for material damages. In the operative part of the judgment, the only payments ordered were moral damages and reimbursement of court costs and expenses. The Stated added the following: While the judgment (paragraph 178) rightly stipulates that the reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires full restitution (restitutio in integrum), the content and scope of such restitution cannot be left open-ended or imprecise. The judgment must spell out precisely what indemnity is to be paid as compensation for the damages caused. It is clear from the operative part of the judgment that payment of moral damages and reimbursement of court costs and expenses are the only pecuniary reparations considered. … Consequently, it must be clearly established that the Government of Peru acknowledges and condemns the serious abuses that Mr. Baruch Ivcher suffered under the previous authoritarian regime. It is endeavoring to contribute to the full reinstatement and redress of his rights. However, it is of the opinion that a claim seeking compensation for material damages, in addition to those already ordered by the Court in the form of moral damages and reimbursement of court costs and expenses, is not contemplated in either the preamble or operative part of the Court’s judgment, and hence can hardly be ordered by way of an interpretation, especially inasmuch as … the text of the judgment contains observations from which one can infer that such a claim had already been examined and discarded by the Court. * * The Court’s observations *