17. The Court will now analyze the representatives’ request to determine whether, according to the norms and standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any element of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs. The Court will examine the issues raised by the representatives, together with the arguments presented by the State and the Commission. 18. The Court notes that, in their request for interpretation, the representatives asked for clarification of three elements of the Judgment concerning the reparations for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage: (i) the method of payment and distribution of the compensation for loss of earnings; (ii) the method of payment and distribution of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and (iii) the date of expiry of the obligation to pay the compensation. This Court will proceed to examine the arguments presented by the representatives within the framework of the request for interpretation; it will rule on their admissibility and, if appropriate, will make the clarifications it deems pertinent. 19. When considering the questions raised by the representatives, the Court finds similarity in the questions posed with regard to two of the aspects described above. Consequently, the Court will consider the arguments in the following order: (A) the time frame for complying with payment of the compensation ordered in the Judgment, and (B) the criteria for distributing the compensation for loss of earnings and for non-pecuniary damage. A. Time frame for complying with payment of the compensation ordered in the Judgment Arguments of the Commission and of the parities 20. The representatives asked the Court to clarify the time frame for the State to make the payment for the compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse costs and expenses established in this Judgment, owing to the different time frames established in paragraphs 367, 384 and 388 of the Judgment. 21. In this regard, the State indicated that “each paragraph of the Judgment that [… the representatives] have compared refers to a different type of compensation.” However, Guatemala indicated that “if the […] Court considers it prudent to clarify the exact date of each payment, the State does not object to this, because […] the State does not accept the Judgment […] and, therefore, offers to compensate the petitioners through the National Compensation Program.” 22. Meanwhile, the Commission indicated that it understood that paragraph 367 referred specifically to consequential damages, so that the time frame established for this payment is one year. Despite this, the Commission underscored that “paragraphs 384 and 388 regarding the method of complying with all the payments for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses, appear to establish different time frames and, therefore, it would be appropriate to clarify this. Considerations of the Court 23. The Court observes that the representatives have requested clarification of the time frame established in the Judgment for the State to comply with the payment of the compensation established in the said Judgment. 5