of the victims’ representatives and the Commission. Consequently, the request for interpretation on this point is declared inadmissible. 24. Regarding the second point submitted for interpretation, this Court considers that paragraph 299 is clear in establishing that the ailments that should be included in the rehabilitation measure are those resulting from the facts of this case and that such consideration shall be determined “through a prior physical and psychological appraisal.” Thus, the Court notes that there is no issue that requires clarification, inasmuch as the paragraph cited establishes the parameters to be considered with respect to the granting of the rehabilitation measure. Consequently, since there is no ambiguous or imprecise aspect to be clarified, this aspect of the State’s request for interpretation is dismissed. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 25. Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES, Unanimously: 1. To declare admissible the request for interpretation of the judgment on the preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs in the case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia, presented by the State, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 7 of this judgment of interpretation. 2. To declare inadmissible the requests for interpretation of the judgment on the preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs in the case of Valencia Campos et al. v. Bolivia presented by the State, pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 16 to 17 and 22 to 24 of this judgment of interpretation, with regard to the payment of costs and expenses ordered and the measure of rehabilitation. 3. To order the Secretariat of the Court to notify the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the victims’ representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this judgment of interpretation. 7