3 II JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 4. Pursuant to Article 67 of the Convention2, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its judgments. When examining the request for interpretation, pursuant to Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the Judgment upon which an interpretation has been requested. III ADMISSIBILITY 5. The Court must verify if the request for interpretation complies with the requirements established in the applicable norms, specifically the above-cited Article 67 of the Convention, as well as 29(3)3 and 594 of the Rules of Procedure. 6. The Commission considered “that the communication presented by the State does not meet the requirements set forth in Article 67 of the American Convention […] or Articles 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court”. Furthermore, the Commission alleged that the “request presented by Suriname attempts to appeal aspects of the decision which the State finds unfavorable, or to induce the Tribunal to interpret some passages of the judgment according to the State’s interpretation of the facts and the procedure and its disagreement with the sentence.” Additionally, the Commission observed that the “State has not pointed to any ambiguity or lack of clarity in the text of the judgment”. Nonetheless, “[w]hile the Commission consider[ed] that the request presented by the State is framed in the terms of an appeal of questions already decided and explained in the judgment, the Commission also note[d] that the issues raised indicate that the State may require further guidance with respect to certain criteria in order to implement the Court’s orders”. 7. The representatives observed that the State’s request meets the pertinent admissibility requirements. Concurrently, the representatives stated that some of the “issues presented by Suriname are unfocused and imprecise and are, therefore, not amenable to precise responses”. Nonetheless, the representatives observed that, “because all of the issues raised by the State are highly important and/or reveal serious misinterpretations of the judgment, they respectfully urge the Court to explain each [issue, in order] to rectify these serious misinterpretations and to assist the parties to fully understand and implement the judgment”. 2 Article 67 of the Convention states that “[t]he 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.” 3 Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 4 Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure states that: 1. The request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment.