5.
The State shall, within a reasonable period of time, continue to implement permanent education
programs and training courses directed at public officials at the regional and national levels, and
particularly judicial officials in all areas and at all levels of the Judicial Branch, in […] this Judgment.
6.
The State shall pay the amounts stipulated in […] this Judgment, as compensation for pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damages and reimbursement of costs and expenses, as corresponds, under the terms
and conditions stated in […]this Judgment.

3.
The Judgment Requesting Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations,
and Costs of November 11, 2012 (hereinafter “the Request for Interpretation”), wherein the
Inter-American Court decided:
1.
2.
3.
4.

4.
that:

To declare admissible the request for interpretation of paragraphs 71, 255, 299 and 313 of the Judgment
on Merits, Reparations and Costs in the present case, submitted by the representative of the victims,
under the terms of paragraph 21 of this Judgment on Interpretation.
To determine by way of interpretation the meaning and scope of the provisions contained in the Judgment
on Merits, Reparations and Costs, regarding the reparations for non-pecuniary damage, under the terms
of paragraph 21 of this Judgment on Interpretation.
To reject the request for interpretation of Judgment submitted by the representatives of the victims,
regarding the rehabilitation measure of medical and psychological assistance, in accordance with
paragraphs 26 to 28 of this Judgment.
To reject the request for interpretation of Judgment submitted by the representatives of the victims,
regarding the payment of fees and expenses, in accordance with paragraphs 32 to 34 of this Judgment.

In particular, in paragraph 21 of the Request for Interpretation, the Court noted
there is a difference between the mode of compliance with the compensation for non-pecuniary damage
addressed in paragraphs 299 and 313, and the rest of the reparations ordered [...]. In this respect, the
Court specifies by way of interpretation that the compensation granted must be awarded under the terms
established in paragraph 313 of the Judgment, and that therefore the State shall deposit the funds in the
aforementioned financial institution, without the requirement to obtain the free opinion of the girl V.,
bearing in mind that those funds may be withdrawn by the beneficiaries when they come of age. As to the
other measures of reparation ordered in favor of the girl V., these shall require her free opinion.

5.
The briefs of April 9, 2013, and June 11, 2013, wherein the State made reference to
compliance with the Judgment.
6.
The briefs of May 30, 2013, and July 19, 2013, wherein the representatives of the
victims (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their observations to the State’s briefs.
7.
The brief of August 7, 2013, wherein the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) presented their
observations to the information provided by the State and representatives.
CONSIDERING THAT:
1.
One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor
compliance with its decisions.
2.
As established in Article 67 of the American Convention, the State must comply fully
and promptly with the judgments of the Court. Also, Article 68(1) of the American
Convention stipulates that “[t]he States Parties to the Convention undertake to comply with
the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” To this end, the State

2

Select target paragraph3