5 which the parties can request the Court to issue clarifications about the meaning or scope of a judgment. In the instant case, the request made by Brazil does not refer to a possible editing error in the judgment that could be rectified based on Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure. To the contrary, in view of the possible anomaly of the element alleged by the State, the channel that could be in order to clarify the meaning and scope of the eighth operative paragraph of the judgment would be a request for interpretation of judgment, which must be filed within ninety days of the date of its notification, a time frame that has long been exceeded. 13. To clarify any possible doubts that the State may have, the Court finds it relevant to reaffirm that the measure of reparation questioned by Brazil is not the result of an error. Examination of the judgment reveals clearly that the Court considered and ordered this measure of reparation after assessing the request of the Inter-American Commission and in view of the absence of any specific arguments from the other parties, as can be verified in paragraphs 237 to 239 of the chapter on reparations and, thus, in the eighth operative paragraph of the judgment. These references show clearly and coherently the content, form and time frame established by the Court for the State to comply with the obligation to publish the relevant parts of the judgment. 14. Furthermore, this measure of reparation is in keeping with the provisions of the Convention and the Rules of Procedure, as well as the Court’s case law. Indeed, the Court recalls that the order to publish parts of the judgment in a newspaper is a usual measure of reparation that can be found in almost all the rulings delivered by this Court in recent years. Usually, this measure complements the publication that the State in question must make in its official gazette. Depending on the circumstances of the case, on previous occasions the Court has also ordered that the same publication be made in a national newspaper and a newspaper abroad,8 or in a national newspaper and also in other social communication media,9 should the reparation of the violation declared and other circumstances of the case merit this. In addition, the content of the extracts of the judgment to be published depends on the violations found in the specific case, how they were committed and the extent of the damage caused. In the instant case, the content to be published is adequate in relation to the human rights violations found and, in length; it does not differ substantially from what has been ordered in other cases concerning other States.10 7 Article 68. Request for interpretation 1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits, or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which interpretation is requested. […] 8 Cf. Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, eleventh operative paragraph. 9 Cf. Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, twelfth operative paragraph; Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, seventeenth operative paragraph, and Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, tenth operative paragraph, among others. 10 Cf. Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, tenth operative paragraph; Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, thirteenth operative paragraph, and The Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, thirteenth operative paragraph, among others.