proceeding cannot be used to attempt to broaden the scope of a reparation measure ordered in a timely manner. 6 11. The Inter-American Court will examine the matters raised by the State in the following order: a) the request for interpretation regarding the scope of the payment of costs and expenses of one of the representatives of the alleged victims, and b) the request for interpretation of the measure of medical and psychological and/or psychiatric treatment. A. Request for interpretation regarding the scope of the payment of costs and expenses of one of the representatives of the alleged victims A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 12. The State noted that paragraph 337 of the judgment orders the payment of costs and expenses “for each of the two representatives of the alleged victims, namely, Mr. Jemio Mendoza and Mr. Gómez Rojas.” In this regard, it indicated that footnote 4 of paragraph 5 of the judgment named Hugo Efraín Jemio Mendoza and Fabiola Machicao Hidalgo as representatives of the victims Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz and María Fernanda Peña Gallardo respectively. However, it pointed out that “footnote 5, specifies that briefs subsequent to the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence […] were only signed by Jemio Mendoza.” It also noted that “Fabiola Machicao Hidalgo’s representation is mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 20 of the judgment, which generates a reasonable doubt for the State as to the exclusion of said person as representative.” In view of the foregoing, it sought to “clarify the scope of the payment of costs and expenses for the representation of Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz and of María Fernanda Peña Gallardo.” 13. The inter-American public defenders indicated that this aspect does not affect their clients and therefore did not refer to this point. 14. The representative Jemio Mendoza stated that “a few days after the accreditation notes were signed, for personal reasons [Mrs.] Fabiola Machicao Hidalgo was no longer able to assume the representation.” He added that “throughout the processing of the entire case before the Court […], the representation of the victims Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz and María Fernanda Peña Gallardo, was assumed solely by [him],” and that “Ms. Fabiola Machicao at no time assumed the representation before the Court.” 15. The Commission noted that “payments to the representatives are not a matter for interpretation of judgment, but rather a matter of monitoring compliance with the decisions of the Court.” A.2. Considerations of the Court 16. Regarding the payment of costs and expenses to the representatives ordered in the judgment, this Court recalls that paragraph 337 of the judgment stated the following: The Court reiterates that, in the case of alleged financial disbursements, the representatives must clearly establish the items and their justification. In this case, the representatives merely provided vouchers for some of the alleged victims. 6 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the judgment of preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, supra, para. 11. 4