4 page and the operative paragraphs; (ii) be made in newspapers with extensive circulation at the national level and in the state of Paraná; (iii) be of the same size as the publication of the judgment in the Ximenes Lopes case, and (iv) be reviewed previously by the representatives. 9. For its part, the Commission recalled the nature of the case and observed that the publication of the judgment represented an important step towards compliance with the aspects ordered by the Court. It also considered that, in the case of reparations, the wishes of the victims should be taken into account. Consequently, it indicated that it had no additional observations to make on the details of the said publication. 10. Regarding the representatives’ observations concerning its inquiry, the State affirmed that their proposal involved reducing the text from 41 pages to 23. In this way, the publication of the ruling, as ordered in the judgment, or with the characteristics of the publication made in the Ximenes Lopes case would not respond to the public interest. Even if the text were abridged, it would still be very long, with a very small typeface and technical language, and this would not help the greatest possible number of people understand the ruling and its context. In addition, it emphasized that the cost of the publication would still be very high, almost R$200,000.00 (two hundred thousand reales) in a national newspaper with widespread circulation and R$90,000.00 (ninety thousand reales) in a newspaper of the state of Paraná. Consequently, Brazil reiterated the arguments and proposals made in its first brief, particularly as regards “the publication in [a] national and regional newspaper of a clear and concise informative text, on a quarter-page and in an appropriate section [of the newspaper], concerning the case, the judgment and the importance of the inter-American system […] about which Brazilian society knows very little.” Lastly, the State asked the Court to advise it of the time frame for publishing the judgment in the form determined by the Court. * * * 11. In relation to the State’s inquiry regarding the existence of a possible error in the judgment, Article 76 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure5 stipulates that: The Court may, on its own motion or at the request of any of the parties to the case, within one month of the notice of the judgment or order, rectify obvious mistakes, clerical errors, or errors in calculation. The Commission, the victims or their representatives, the respondent State, and, if applicable, the petitioning State shall be notified if an error is rectified. 12. Since this is the first occasion on which a party invokes Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court deems it pertinent to make the following clarification. The possibility of rectification established in the said article applies to obvious editing oversights corresponding to minor errors in calculation, spelling or typing. Consequently, the meaning of the rectification established in the said article should not be confused with the purpose of a request for interpretation of judgment established in Articles 67 of the American Convention 6 and 68 of the Rules of Procedure, 7 under 5 The Rules of Procedure of the Court approved at its eight-fifth regular session held from November 16 to 28, 2009. 6 Article 67. The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.