this case (hereinafter “the Judgment”), filed on June 5, 2012 by the representatives of Mrs. Atala Riffo (hereinafter, the “representatives”). I INTRODUCTION TO THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 1. On February 24, 2012 the Court issued the Judgment, which was notified to the parties on March 20 of the same year. 2. On June 5, 2012 the representatives submitted to the Court a brief requesting an interpretation of the Judgment. In said brief, they requested that the Court: i) “[s]pecify the terms under which the competent state institution responsible for children should conduct an interview with V., for the purposes of paragraph 71, and, furthermore, that it clarify the meaning and scope of paragraph 71 of said Judgment, in the light of paragraphs 255, 299 and 313, differentiating between reparations, particularly rehabilitation and compensation”; ii) “[s]pecify the material circumstances in which it is possible to comply with the six-month period so that the girls M., V. and R, may indicate to the State whether they wish to receive psychological or psychiatric treatment, as rehabilitation for the violations of their human rights. The material circumstances should take into account the possibility of their attaining the necessary maturity, autonomy and independence to decide on this form of reparation freely and in an informed manner”, and iii) to “add to the costs, the payment of fees and travel expenses incurred by the expert witness María Alicia Espinoza Abarzúa, who provided assistance to the officials of the Honorable Court in implementing the measure ordered, consisting of the interview with the girls M., V. and R”. 3. On June 21, 2012, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court forwarded the abovementioned communication to the State of Chile (hereinafter, the “Chile” or the “State”) and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”). The State and the Inter-American Commission were also invited to submit any written arguments or comments deemed pertinent, no later than July 21, 2012. 4. On July 21, 2012, the State submitted its arguments and observations regarding the representatives’ request for interpretation of the Judgment. 5. That same day, the Inter-American Commission forwarded its observations to the aforementioned request for interpretation by the representatives. II JURISDICTION 6. Article 67 of the Convention establishes that: [t]he 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. 7. Pursuant to this Article, the Court is competent to interpret its rulings. In examining a request for interpretation, the Court will, whenever possible, be composed of the same judges who delivered the respective Judgment, in accordance with Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who issued the Judgment for which the representatives have requested an interpretation. 2