However, the Court finds it reasonable to suppose that, over the years during which this case was processed, the representatives incurred expenses. However, it emphasizes that the expenses paid directly by the alleged victims were taken into account when calculating their financial compensation. Therefore, the Court decides to establish the reasonable sum of US$10,000 (ten thousand United States dollars) each for the two representatives of the alleged victims, namely, representative Jemio Mendoza and representative Gómez Rojas. With regard to the inter-American public defenders, their expenses were covered through the application of the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund. 7 17. Based on the transcript above, it is clear that the Court ordered that the payment of costs and expenses, as regards the representation of Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz and María Fernanda Peña Gallardo, be awarded to representative Hugo Efraín Jemio Mendoza. On this point, according to what Mr. Jemio Mendoza himself stated, the representation of the victims Gallardo Ardúz and Peña Gallardo before the Court was assumed by him alone. Thus, the provisions of paragraph 337 are clear and precise, and therefore no clarification is necessary. Consequently, the Court dismisses the State’s request for interpretation. B. Request for interpretation regarding the measure of medical and psychological and/or psychiatric treatment B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 18. The State indicated that “although the judgment requires that medical and psychological and/or psychiatric care be provided free of charge and immediately to all victims who request it, it does not specify the time period in which the victims may make such a request,” which “is essential to generate legal certainty and security for all parties to the proceedings, to be clear about the timing of requests and to avoid subsequent observations during the monitoring compliance with judgment stage.” It also pointed out that “the health care to be provided as rehabilitation measures should be directly related to the specific ailments of the victims resulting from this case,” and therefore asked the Court to specify whether this “should be deduced from the claims made by the representatives and by the Court [in] the judgment” or “through a prior […] physical and psychological assessment.” 19. The inter-American public defenders asked the Court to “reject the request for interpretation,” since it constitutes “a request for review and modification of an aspect of the judgment.” They considered that the Court “has adopted a broad position as regards rehabilitation measures.” They also reported that they had already “informed the […] State about the claims of all the victims who were present at the proceedings,” but that “it is clear that informing on the medical claims of the absent victims may take more time, as this depends on them being located.” Thus, “the lack of a precise deadline for requesting the rehabilitation measures to be implemented by the State seems reasonable in light of the large number of recognized absent victims.” Finally, they pointed out that the judgment is clear that “the victims’ treatment needs must be deduced from the claims made by the representatives, from the violations recognized by the Inter-American Court in its judgment and from the physical and psychological assessments previously carried out on the victims,” since “all these elements, which complement each other, must be taken into consideration when providing the victims with the medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment that they may request.” 7 Cf. Case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 18, 2022. Series C No. 469, para. 337. 5