3 IV SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST 9. Mr. Cesti requested in his petition that the Court “interpret paragraphs 41, 46, and 47 of its judgment on reparations delivered on May 31, 2001, and point No. 1 of the operative section of that judgment, bearing in mind the questions raised [in the request for interpretation and] that it convene the parties to a public hearing, so as to hear his pleadings on [the] interpretation remedy”. 10. Mr. Cesti specifically requested that the Court clarify the following: 1. Whether, as part of the material damage caused, the Peruvian State must indemnify the victim for direct detriment to his assets derived from the expenses he had to incur to confront the acts which violated his rights and which have been established by the […] Court in its judgment on the merits in the Cesti Hurtado Case. 2. Whether -taking into account what the Court said in paragraphs 32, 33, and 36 of the judgment on reparations-, as part of the material damages, the Peruvian State must indemnify the victim for the expenses required for his legal defense in face of the acts of the Peruvian State which violated his rights, which in fact were detrimental to his assets, and which the […] Court did not include under Costs and Expenses. 3. Whether, pursuant to paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment on reparations, to determine the amount of material damage, “taking into account the items usually included under material damage” […], that is, consequential damages, lost earnings, and other economic damages derived from the violation of the human rights of Gustavo Cesti Hurtado, and taking into account the principle of restitutio in integrum […], it can be understood that the Peruvian State must indemnify for all material damages caused in this case, and that only determination of their amount is pending. 4. Whether the Peruvian State, in light of the mandate of the judgment on reparations for which an interpretation has been requested, is under the obligation to begin on its own initiative the relevant procedures before domestic entities for payment of the indemnification set forth in points 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the operative part of the judgment, or whether the victim must initiate them, so as to collect the indemnification due to him. 5. Whether the term ‘relevant national procedures’ mentioned in point No. 1 of the operative part of the judgment, as well as the reference to ‘mechanisms established in domestic legislation’ stated in paragraph 46, and the reference to the “relevant national laws” contained in paragraph 47 of the judgment on reparations, refer to: a) judicial procedures to determine the amount of indemnity to be paid, therefore leaving the determination of that amount entirely and exclusively in the hands of the courts of that State […], or b) if it is sufficient for the victim, as part of those ‘relevant procedures’, to demonstrate to the State -with the same evidentiary documents previously filed before the […] Court and which were not challenged before the Court- the expenses he had to make and the amount of damages caused to him, or c) whether the expression ‘relevant domestic procedures’, or ‘mechanisms established under domestic legislation’, or ‘relevant national norms’ presuppose a direct negotiation among the parties so as to determine the amount of indemnification, or d) whether these expressions refer to alternative forms of conflict resolution, such as arbitration, provided for by Peruvian legislation. 6. In any of the abovementioned cases, taking into account the provisions of paragraphs 47 and 74 of the judgment on reparations, to state: a) what is the period within which the amount of indemnification to be paid for material damages must be determined, and