2 provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. Under that article, the Court is competent to interpret its own judgments. When considering a request for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation is being sought (Article 58(3) of the Rules of Procedure). In this instance, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the judgment on the merits, whose interpretation has been requested by the Inter-American Commission and by Mr. Ivcher Bronstein. II INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION 2. On May 4 and 8, 2001, the Inter-American Commission and Mr. Ivcher, respectively, each filed a request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention. 3. By note of June 1, 2001, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) forwarded to Peru a copy of the requests for interpretation and, in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Rules of Procedure, invited it to present whatever comments it deemed relevant by no later than July 1, 2001. 4. On July 2, 2001, the State presented its written comments on the request for interpretation, which it supplemented via a brief dated July 3, 2001. III PURPOSE OF THE REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION 5. In its request for interpretation, the Commission asked the Court to stipulate “that the liability of the Peruvian State encompasses all elements that constitute reparations under international law[,] [which are] material and moral damages, other forms of non-pecuniary reparations, and the costs and expenses incurred in the domestic and international jurisdictions.” For his part, Mr. Ivcher Bronstein asked the Court “to interpret the reparations obligations arising from the judgment […] and the procedure that must be followed for a just compensation that constitutes restitutio in integrum for the damages caused [...]”. 6. Both requests for interpretation were based on the fact that on April 16, 2001, Peru sent Mr. Ivcher a note to the following effect: As to the comment in your note concerning payment of compensation as reparations for any material damages caused as a result of the violation of your rights, I have made inquiries and coordinated with the State authorities concerned. I have been told that from the findings of in the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court, it is the Peruvian Government’s understanding that the only payments ordered are those to compensate for moral damages and reimburse court costs. It is the Government’s interpretation of the judgment that no additional compensation of any kind is either recognized or contemplated. The Government, therefore, does not share your interpretation of the Court’s judgment, to the effect that an obligation of this type is ordered. 7. As the preceding paragraphs show, the clarification sought in both requests for interpretation concerned the scope of the reparations the Court awarded in its