4 8. The Judgment in this case was notified to the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the representatives on December 19, 2007, and the State submitted its request for an interpretation of said Judgment on March 17, 2008. Thus, the State complied with the term established in Article 67 of the Convention. 9. As this Tribunal has previously stated,5 the request for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as an appeal, but, rather, its exclusive objective is to clarify the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties considers that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, as long as these considerations affect said operative paragraphs. Therefore, a party may not seek the modification or annulment of the corresponding judgment through a request for interpretation. 10. The Court observes that some of the State’s requests lack precision as to which issues require the Court’s interpretation relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment. Nonetheless, the Court considers that the issues raised indicate that the State requires further guidance in order to fully comply with the Court’s orders. Thus, to provide a comprehensive response to the State’s concerns, and in light of the interrelatedness of some of the issues raised by the State, the Court declares the request admissible as a whole and will proceed to analyze those issues in the following order: (1) questions regarding (a) the establishment of a mechanism for the “effective participation” of the Saramaka people, and (b) the determination of the beneficiaries of a “just compensation”; (2) questions regarding the circumstances in which the State may not execute a proposed developmental and investment plan in Saramaka territory, particularly regarding prior environmental and social impact assessments; (3) questions regarding concessions the State may grant in Saramaka territory, and (4) whether the Court took into consideration the State’s arguments related to the violation of Article 3 of the Convention. IV THE REQUIREMENTS OF “EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION” AND “BENEFIT SHARING” 11. In its request for an interpretation of the Judgment, the State requested clarification as to the person or persons with whom the State must consult when establishing the mechanism by which the “effective participation” of the Saramaka people will be guaranteed, as ordered in the Judgment. The State questioned whether it is obligated to consult “with the collective of Saramaka Captains, or with individual captains involved in the respective territory, or with the Paramount Chief (Gaa’man of the Saramaka people), or with other subsidiary entities within the culture, custom and traditions of the Saramaka People”. Similarly, the State alluded to the Court’s determination, in the chapter on “Preliminary Objections”, that any individual may file a petition before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The State questioned whether this meant that the State had an obligation to consult with “every individual, organ or entity within the cultural structure of the Saramaka Tribe”. Finally, the State raised concerns regarding which Saramakas should benefit from specific development projects. Particularly, the State seemed concerned about the possible hindrance of the State’s economic development, as well as other complications and internal divisions among the Saramaka that might occur, if certain tribe members living in areas close to where concessions were issued become excluded from sharing those benefits. The State observed that those tribe members might consequently 5 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of Escué-Zapata v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 5, 2008. Series C No. 178, para. 10, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Sana Cruz v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2008. Series C No. 176, para. 10.