2 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 extend 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". In Section (d), dealing with the State’s liability, the State 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 result in the reduction of or exemption from the State’s liability”. II JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 4. Under Article 67 of the American Convention, the Court has competent jurisdiction to interpret its own judgments. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. On February 8, 2006, pursuant to Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and following instructions from the President of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court forwarded a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) and to the victim’s representatives (hereinafter "the representatives"), inviting them to submit the written arguments they deemed fit no later than April 10, 2006. In addition, the State was reminded that, under Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[the] request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment.” 6. On April 7, 2006, the Commission requested a ten-day time extension from the termination date, in order to submit the requisite written arguments. On that same day, the Secretariat of the Court, following instructions from the Court’s President, granted the extension requested by the Commission until April 19, 2006. In addition, the representatives were informed that they had been granted the extension to submit their arguments. 7. On April 19, 2006, the Commission presented its arguments concerning the request for interpretation, wherein it asserted that the State does not expect the Court to interpret the meaning and scope of its judgment pursuant to Article 67 of the Convention and Article 58 (sic) of the Rules of Procedure but, instead, it seeks a review and a reconsideration of the final judgment not subject to appeal entered by the Court, since it takes issue with the content thereof. As the State itself pointed out, it relies on such remedy in the absence of a remedy for the review of judgments issued by the Court. As a result, the Commission considered that the request for interpretation filed by the State does not comply with the requisite formalities to be properly deemed as a request for interpretation and that it should therefore be dismissed. 8. On April 19, 2006, the representatives asserted that the pleading filed by the State does not constitute a request for interpretation under Article 67 of the Convention and Article 59(1) of the Rules of Procedure, nor does it conform to the