I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On October 18, 2022, the Inter-American Court delivered the judgment in this case, which was notified to the parties and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) on January 25, 2023. 2. On April 17, 2023, the State submitted a request for interpretation of the judgment regarding the scope of the payment for costs and expenses of one of the representatives and the rehabilitation measure related to medical and psychological and/or psychiatric treatment. 3. On May 5, 2023, pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and following the instructions of the Presidency of the Court, the Court’s Secretariat sent the aforementioned request for interpretation to the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) 1 and to the Inter-American Commission, granting them until June 5, 2023, to present in writing any observations they considered pertinent. The interAmerican public defenders, the representative Jemio Mendoza and the Commission submitted their observations on May 26 and June 2 and 5, 2023, respectively. The representative Gómez Rojas did not submit observations. II JURISDICTION 4. Article 67 of the American 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. 5. In accordance with the above article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its judgments. According to Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, when examining requests for interpretation and making decisions in this regard, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the original judgment. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges that issued the judgment whose interpretation has been requested. 1 In the instant case, the alleged victims are represented by three different representatives: Carlos Eduardo Gómez Rojas who represents Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia, Carlos Álvaro Taboada Valencia, Claudio Tito Centeno Valencia, Claudia Mariela Valencia Alarcón de Centeno, Gabriel Blas Valencia Alarcón, Alexis Eduardo Valencia Alarcón, Blas Valencia Campos and Mauricio Marcelo Valenzuela Valencia. Hugo Efraín Jemio Mendoza who represents Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz and María Fernanda Peña Gallardo. Inter-American public defenders who represent Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón, Victoria Gutiérrez Aguilar of Lulleman, Oswaldo Lulleman Antezana, Jenny Paola Lulleman Gutiérrez of Zaconeta, Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman Gutiérrez, Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez, Edwin Rodríguez Alarcón, Genaro Ahuacho Luna, Alfredo Bazán and Rosas, Freddy Cáceres Castro, Carlos Enrique Castro Ramírez, Carlos Eladio Cruz Añez, Julia Mamanu Mamani, Elacio Peña Córdoba, F.E.P.M., Edwin Rodríguez Alarcón and Mercedes Valencia Chuquimia. 2