expect the Court to re-assess matters that have been decided in the judgment.5 Similarly, a request cannot be used to try and expand the scope of a reparation measure that was ordered at the opportune procedural moment.6 11. The Inter-American Court will examine the issues raised by the State in the following order: (A) the request for interpretation of the term "annual installments"; (B) the request for interpretation of the criteria to be applied for restitution and compensation payments, and the reimbursement of costs and expenses; (C) the request for interpretation on the increase of the amounts to be paid in three annual installments relating to the restitution measure and the charging of interest for late payment on the sums due; (D) the request for interpretation on the procedure for the search for heirs in respect of beneficiaries who die or have died in the course of the enforcement of the Judgment and (E) the request for interpretation of the concept of "judicial operators" in the guarantees of non-repetition. A. Interpretation of the term "annual installments" A.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 12. The State requested clarification of the expression "annual installments" used in paragraph 232 of the Judgment regarding the method of payment of the amounts established as a restitution measure. It alleged that, according to the Dictionary of the Royal Academy of Language, there are different meanings of the word "installment" [tracto, in Spanish], and therefore requested that the Court indicate which one the Judgment refers to. 13. The representatives argued that the word "installment" should be understood as "three annual periods of time", indicating that this meaning is the most consistent with the Judgment itself and the one that allows payment through a regulated and progressive mechanism in time for the full and timely compliance with the Judgment. They added that the first installment must be counted within one year of notification of the Judgment, that is, as of December 21, 2021, which extends until December 21, 2022. They argued that such payment method "seeks to prevent and avoid further delay in payments at the stage of compliance". 14. The representatives also requested the Court to ensure a rapid, efficient, transparent and reliable mechanism to implement the payment ordered by the Judgment, and therefore asked the Court to urgently request the State of Chile to designate the sound Chilean financial institution referred to in paragraph 236 of the Judgment and to order the representative to go to the entity designated by the State, accompanying the power of attorney that have been granted by the victims in the case, to arrange for the opening of a current account or deposit certificate, under the most favorable financial conditions permitted by Chilean law and by banking practice. They added that, pursuant to the regulations governing trust commissions, it would be necessary for the trustee to grant a special authorization to that institution in order to manage the financial payments pursuant 5 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 Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 11. 6 Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11 Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 11. 4