6 litigation of the case before the Inter-American organs, which runs counter to the right to petition such organs without suffering threats or retaliation set forth in the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure and affirmed by the Court in past decisions. In view of such threats, the Court must “restate the State’s duty to fully comply with the reparation measures [...] and to protect and respect the human rights of victims and their next of kin". Considerations by the Court 20. The Court will now analyze whether the State’s allegations seek for the Court to interpret the meaning or scope of the Judgment, i.e., if they conform to the nature of a request for interpretation of a judgment, and will then issue a decision. 21. The State’s request for interpretation was divided into four sections. In its two first sections, inter alia, the request stated (a) that it has not been established whether the girl Violeta Bosico was born in the Dominican Republic, and (b) that there are doubts whether the girl Dilcia Yean is daughter to Leonidas Oliven-Yean. Therefore, the State asserted that the girls cannot be said to be Dominican. In section (c) dealing with statelessness, the request stated that the girls were never stateless, since they could have acquired Haitian nationality like their grandparents’. Further, the request also said that "the State deems itself to have performed its duty to deliver the birth certificates [arising from] a friendly settlement[,] and considers that, even though the applicants have possession of their certificates, they will have to comply with the legal formalities [...] to acquire the birth certificates as prescribed by law". Section (d), dealing with the State’s liability, purports to “know the content and scope of the liability arising from the acts of the officers who took part in the case [...] in the understanding that the mitigation of or exemption from [such officers’] liability will bring about the mitigation of or exemption from the State’s liability”. 22. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that in the above-mentioned sections the State attempts to challenge the findings of the Judgment that Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico were born in the Dominican Republic and are thus Dominican under the ius soli principle, as stated in paragraphs 109(6), 109(7), 109(12), 144 and 158 of said Judgment. Secondly, the State contested paragraphs 173 and 174 of the Judgment providing that the State is internationally liable inasmuch as it “failed to comply with its duty to safeguard the rights set forth in the American Convention”, since it committed “an arbitrary deprivation of nationality” against the girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico, “leaving them stateless for more than four years and four months, in violation of Articles 20 and 24 of the American Convention in relation with Article 19 thereof”. 23. The Court finds that the State’s assertions seek to challenge the Court's findings based on the body of evidence submitted to it during the contentious proceedings, since the Dominican Republic submits before the Court issues of fact and of law that were already raised at the proper stage in the proceedings, upon which the Court has already made a decision, and which may not be addressed at this Judgment interpretation stage. 24. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court decides to dismiss the request for interpretation filed by the State because it fails to conform to the