2
clarification of some of the reparation measures ordered by the Inter-American [C]ourt
in its judgment, on the grounds of lack of clarity regarding execution thereof.” The
reparation measures at issue are those related to the publication of the findings
reached in the criminal proceedings, the creation of a fund for the development of the
community, the measures ordered to ensure the higher education of Myriam ZapataEscué, and payment of legal costs and expenses.
2.
On November 5, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of Article 59(2) of the Rules
of Procedure and on instructions from the President of the Court, the Secretariat of the
Court (hereinafter, “the Secretariat”) forwarded a copy of the request for interpretation
to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission” or
“the Inter-American Commission”) and to the victim’s representatives (hereinafter,
“the representatives”) and his next of kin, informing them that they would have a nonpostponable term up to December 10, 2007, to file the written arguments they
deemed appropriate. Likewise, it reminded the State that, as provided for by Article
59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[a] request for interpretation does not suspend the
effects of the Judgment.”
3.
On December 10, 2007, the representatives and the Commission filed,
respectively, the written arguments referred to above.
II
JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT
4.

Article 67 of the Convention provides that
[t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement
as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of
the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the
judgment.

5.
Under the above-mentioned article, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its
own judgments. In examining a request for interpretation, the Court must have,
whenever possible, the same composition it had when delivering the Judgment of
which interpretation is being sought (Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). On this
occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the Judgment of
which interpretation has been requested.
III
ADMISSIBILITY
6.
It is incumbent upon the Court to verify whether the terms of the request for
interpretation comply with the requirements set forth in the applicable provisions, to
wit, Articles 67 of the Convention and 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure.
7.
Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure provides that “judgments and orders of
the Court may not be contested in any way.”
8.

Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure provides that:
1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in
connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the
Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the
judgment of which the interpretation is requested.
[…]

Select target paragraph3