3 3. On January 12, 2011, under the provisions of Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter also “the Secretariat”) sent a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the InterAmerican Commission” or “the Commission”) and to the Organización del Pueblo Indígena Tlapaneco/Me´phaa (OPIM) [Tlapaneco/Me´phaa Indigenous Peoples Organization], the Centro de Derechos Humanos de la Montaña “Tlachinollan” [Tlachinollan” Mountain Human Rights Center] and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (all hereinafter “the representatives”) giving them until February 11, 2011, to submit any written arguments they considered pertinent. 4. On February 11, 2011, the Inter-American Commission submitted its written arguments on the request for interpretation, and considered “the State’s assertions and conclusions inadmissible and irreceivable,” because the State was not asking the Court to interpret the meaning or scope of the ruling, but rather it was seeking a revision and reconsideration of the final and non-appealable judgment because it disagreed with the decisions therein. The Commission also indicated that the State had the opportunity to litigate the issues on which it had requested interpretation at the appropriate procedural moment, and that there were no grounds for reopening the discussion. 5. On February 11, 2011, the representatives forwarded their written arguments and asked the Court to declare the request for interpretation inadmissible. They argued that: (a) the State was attempting to modify the Court’s judgment by asking it to address factual and legal issues that had been brought up during the analysis of the merits of the case and specifically decided in the judgment, and (b) there was no reasonable doubt with regard to the meaning and scope of the aspects about which the interpretation was requested. In addition, they considered that the State was trivializing the proven facts and, consequently, weakening the operative paragraphs of the judgment, resulting in a lack of compliance with them. II COMPETENCE AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 6. Article 67 of the Convention establishes that: The 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. 7. Pursuant to this article, the Court has competence to interpret its judgments. In order to examine the request for interpretation and to rule on it, in accordance with Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court must, if possible, have the intervention of the military justice system in this type of case does not refer merely to the act of prosecution, which is the responsibility of a court, but essentially to the investigation itself, because this procedure constitutes the beginning and the necessary grounds for the subsequent intervention of an incompetent court. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. Fernández Ortega. As it has in previous cases […], when it has found that the military criminal jurisdiction is not competent, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on the other arguments concerning the independence and impartiality of the military justice system or the possible violation, based on the same facts, under other Inter-American instruments.