interpretation of the temporal competence of the Court “that it had accepted the Court’s
jurisdiction previously […] and, therefore, the judgments handed down,” as well as the
acceptance of responsibility made by “an agent of the State” in this case, and (v) its
disagreement with the measures of reparation ordered in the Judgment. However, it indicated
that “it retains its commitment to make reparation to the victims of human rights violations that
occurred during the internal armed conflict through the National Compensation Program,
provided they request compensation from this program.” In addition, the Court notes that, in its
brief with observations of April 30, 2013 (supra para. 5), the State reiterated some of the
assertions made in the brief of March 5, 2013, and indicated that it considered that, “in any case,
the Judgment is not binding for the State of Guatemala.”
9.
Both the representatives and the Commission indicated their disagreement with the
State’s considerations, stressing, among other matters, the final and non-appealable nature of
the Court’s judgments, the obligation of States to comply with these decisions, and the
competence of the Court to order the reparations it finds appropriate, as established in Articles
63, 67 and 68 of the American Convention. In particular, the representatives emphasized that
“[e]ach and every issue raised by the State was decided in the Judgment after seven years of
litigation, during which the State had ample opportunity to present its arguments”;
consequently, “[a]t this stage of the proceedings, […] the State's arguments relating to the
Court's jurisdiction, State responsibility for the violations that were committed, and the
reparations are inadmissible.”
10.
The Court finds that the issues raised by the State in its brief of March 5, 2013, do not
constitute a request for interpretation. Even though the State did not entitle the brief as such or
make a request in this regard, the Court finds it opportune to recall that the interpretation of a
judgment cannot address and decide factual and legal issues that have already been presented
at the appropriate procedural stage and on which the Court has adopted a final decision, 3 nor
can it seek that the Court reassess matters it has already decided in its judgment. 4 Furthermore,
the Court has also indicated that formulating abstract or hypothetical situations is not relevant to
the purpose of a request for interpretation of Judgment. 5 Moreover, as previously decided by this
Court, 6 the interpretation of judgment should not be used as a means of contesting the
judgment whose interpretation is required; rather its purpose is merely to determine the
meaning of a ruling when one of the parties affirms that the text of its operative paragraphs
or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that those considerations have an
impact on the said operative paragraphs. 7
3
Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of
June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15, and Case of Abril Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on
merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2011, Series C No. 235, para. 17.
4
Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of
August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Request for interpretation of
the judgment on Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2012. Series C No. 254, para. 34.
5
Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary
objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2008. Series C No. 176, para. 16.
6
Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998.
Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on
preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 189, para. 13, and
Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations
and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2008. Series C No. 188, para. 7.
7
Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra, para. 16; Case of
Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, supra, para. 11, and Case of Abril Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 10.
3