rest. Thus, in the event that there is any problem preventing the payment of the sums to the victims, due to the failure to determine their beneficiaries, the Judgment itself establishes the applicable mechanism in paragraph 234, by stating that the beneficiaries shall be determined "under the terms of applicable domestic legislation". If there is any obstacle attributable to the beneficiaries regarding the payment of the amounts due, paragraph 236 cited (supra para. 25) establishes the mechanism to be followed. 45. This Court considers that the determination of the successors in the event that the beneficiaries die during the execution of this Judgment is an aspect relating to the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment and cannot be determined in the abstract by means of an interpretation of the Judgment. Consequently, it declares the request on this point inadmissible. E. The concept of "justice operators" under guarantees of nonrepetition E.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 46. The State asked about the scope of the term "justice operators" mentioned in paragraph 216 of the Judgment. On this point, it argued that the Judiciary has worked before and after the notification of the Judgment, training the country's judges and future judges in relation to the treatment of and access to justice for older persons. In this regard, it argued that there is a "Protocol on Access to Justice for Older Persons", approved by the Supreme Court on 23 November 2020. Also, pursuant to resolution AD 1303-2021 issued by the Supreme Court of Chile on January 31, 2022, the Judicial Academy has been instructed to take the necessary steps to implement the advanced training course "Rights of the Elderly”. In this way, it requested clarification as to whether the training of judges "would satisfy the duty to guarantee non-repetition". 47. The representatives considered that the concept of judicial operators should be understood and interpreted in relation to the provisions in its Articles 3(n), 4(c) and 31(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons on judicial protection and access to justice. In this way, they considered that a proper understanding of the Judgment and of the expression "judicial operators" cannot, in any case, be restricted to judges, and must reach at least the personnel charged with the administration of justice, including police and penitentiary personnel. 48. The Commission noted that clarifying the points raised by the State can facilitate the process of monitoring compliance with the judgment and expedite compliance with the reparation measures, which is extremely important in the instant case given the advanced age of the victims. However, it did not refer to the points raised in the requests for interpretation. E.2. The Court's considerations 49. In its Judgment, the Court ordered as a guarantee of non-repetition: 216. In view of the violations of the reinforced duty to guarantee due diligence and preferential treatment of older persons in access to justice and expeditious processes, the Court finds it fitting to order the State to create and implement, over the course of one year, a training and sensitivity plan for justice operators concerning access to justice for older adults. This training plan should include verifiable indicators for evaluating progress made during implementation of the plan. 12