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

Select target paragraph3