2. On May 13, 2011, the representative submitted a request for interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, in accordance with Articles 67 of the Convention and 68 of the Rules of Procedure. Specifically, the representative asked for the interpretation of paragraphs 97, 107, 113, 114 and 115, as well as of the fifth operative paragraph relating to the determination of and the justification for the compensation established by the Court. 3. On May 27, 2011, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and on the instruction of the acting President of the Court in this case, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) forwarded a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) and to the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) and granted them until June 27, 2011, to present any written arguments they deemed pertinent. 4. On July 25, 2011, the Inter-American Commission indicated that it had no observations to present on the said request for interpretation of judgment submitted by the representative. For its part, on July 27, 2011, the State sent it written arguments and asked the Court to declare inadmissible the request for interpretation considering that the judgments of the Court “are not subject to appeal”; that the Court had already “analyzed [and assessed] the probative elements that were provided to it,” and that “the request for interpretation […] seeks to obtain a change [in] the [operative paragraphs].” II COMPETENCE AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 5. Article 67 of the Convention establishes that: 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. 6. According to this article, the Court is competent to interpret its decisions. In order to examine the request for interpretation and make the corresponding ruling, the Court must have, if possible, the same composition it had when it delivered the respective judgment, according to Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation has been requested by the representative. III ADMISSIBILITY 7. The Court must verify whether the request for interpretation complies with the requirement established in the applicable norms; namely, Article 67 of the Convention, cited above, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, which, in this regard, stipulates that: 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. 2