4 b) what is the period within which payment of that part of the indemnification must be made. 7. Whether, in case the indemnification decided by the State were not satisfactory for the victim, he can come before this […] Court, for it to determine, as a last resort, the definitive amount of indemnification. V ADMISSIBILITY 11. Article 67 of the Convention requires, as a condition for the admissibility of the request for interpretation of judgment, that it be submitted “within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment”. In the instant case, the Court has verified that the judgment on reparations was notified to the parties on June 6, 2001. Therefore, the request for interpretation was filed in a timely manner (supra 2). Furthermore, the victim has legal standing to appear before the Court, in light of the fact that article 67 of the Convention and the rules of procedure of the Court establish the possibility that the Court interpret its ruling in response to a request by any of the parties and that Mr. Cesti can submit his request in an autonomous manner during the proceedings3. 12. As regards the comments filed by Peru and by the Inter-American Commission, they were submitted within the time limit (supra 6 and 7) and the Court therefore deems it appropriate to examine them. 13. The Court must now verify whether the substantive aspects of the request for interpretation satisfy the applicable norms 4. Article 58(1) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that [t]he request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. 14. The request for interpretation filed by Mr. Cesti is based on doubts regarding the meaning or scope of the reparations ordered by the Court in its May 31, 2001 judgment. 15. In light of the foregoing, the Court notes that the request for interpretation is in accordance with the provisions of article 67 of the Convention and article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, for which reason it declares the request admissible. Without detriment to the above, the Court considers that, even though the scope and the content of the provisions of the judgment on reparations are clear, it will examine the points raised by Mr. Cesti to dispel any doubt that might exist regarding the indemnification he is entitled to for material damages. 3 The relevant part of article 23 of the Rules of Procedure in force at the Court states that “[w]hen the application has been admitted, the alleged victims, their next of kin or their duly accredited representatives may submit their requests, arguments and evidence, autonomously, throughout the proceeding”. 4 Cfr. Ivcher Bronstein Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 4, 2001. C Series No. 84, para. 11 and Barrios Altos Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. C Series No. 83, para. 11.