24. In this regard, the Court notes that paragraph 384 of the Judgment grants the State two years to make the payment of all the compensation established in the Judgment and to reimburse the costs and expenses to the representatives. 9 Nevertheless, the Court notes that it is true that, in paragraphs 367 and 388 of the Judgment, reference is made to a period of one year for the payment of compensation for consequential damage in the former paragraph, and all the compensation in the latter. 10 The Court considers that an examination of the said provisions reveals that the mentions of a one-year period in paragraphs 367 and 388 constitute material errors. The Court underscores that paragraph 384, which is part of the section on “Method of complying with payments ordered,” is the specific provision of the Judgment with regard to the time frame for complying with the pecuniary obligations established therein. The main purpose of paragraph 384 is precisely to establish this time frame, contrary to paragraphs 367 and 388 of the Judgment where the reference to a time frame is incidental, because these paragraphs have other purposes. The purpose of paragraph 367 is to establish the compensation for consequential damage in favor of the victims, while the purpose of paragraph 388 is to ensure that the payment of the compensation established in the Judgment is made fully “without any deductions arising from possible taxes or charges.” 25. Therefore, pursuant to Article 76 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, 11 this Court proceeds to rectify the references to time frames of one year for complying with the pecuniary obligations in paragraphs 367 and 388 of the Judgments. Consequently, it is clearly established that the State must pay the compensation and reimburse costs and expenses “within two years of notification of th[e] Judgment, without prejudice to making the complete payment before that date.” 26. Furthermore, for the purpose of the eventual publication and dissemination of the Judgment, the Court orders the transmission to the parties and to the Commission of a corrected version of the Judgment with the pertinent rectification of the material errors found. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, the interpretation of a judgment does not suspend its execution; hence the time frames established in the Judgment must be calculated as of notification of the original version of 9 In particular, paragraph 384 states that: “[t]he State must make the payment of the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as the reimbursement of costs and expenses established in this Judgment directly to the persons and organization indicated herein, within two years of notification of this Judgment, without prejudice to making the complete payment before that date.” 10 In particular, paragraph 367 states that: “Regarding consequential damages, […] the Court considers that it is reasonable that the family units had to incur certain expenses as a result of the facts of this case in order to undertake the search for justice and for the whereabouts of their loved ones, as well as to take care of the physical and psychological ailments they suffered as a result of the violations declared in this Judgment. The Court also takes into account the financial impact on the family unit caused by the disappearance of one or several of its members. Consequently, the Court establishes, in equity, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) as compensation for consequential damage, which must be paid within one year of notification of this Judgment. For the purposes of the payment of the said amount, the representatives must indicate, within six months of notification of the Judgment, the person in each family unit to whom the said sum must be delivered.” Furthermore, paragraph 388 establishes: “[t]he amounts allocated in this Judgment as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for reimbursement of costs and expenses shall be delivered to the above-mentioned persons and organizations integrally, as established in this Judgment, without any deductions arising from possible taxes or charges, within one year of notification of this Judgment.” 11 Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure establish that “[t]he Court may, on its own motion or at the request of any of the parties to the case, within one month of the notice of the judgment or order, rectify obvious mistakes, clerical errors, or errors in calculation. The Commission, the victims or their representatives, the respondent State, and, if applicable, the petitioning State shall be notified if an error is rectified.” The Court recalls that even though, based on Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, the parties may request a rectification of obvious mistakes, clerical errors, or errors in calculation only “within one month of the notice of the judgment or order,” this time frame does not apply in eventual rectifications that the Court may make motu propio. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of May 17, 2010, fifteenth considering paragraph. 6