5 13. The Court will proceed to analyze the request for interpretation presented by the State and, if appropriate, make the pertinent clarifications. To do so, it will examine the points raised by Mexico, as well as the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. Arguments of the parties 14. The Mexican State declared its willingness to comply with all aspects of the Court’s judgment in strict observance of its international commitments. It affirmed that compliance with the judgment “constitutes an element of public order that the Mexican authorities are obliged to observe, arising from the obligations assumed […] before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights,” and it reiterated “that it will continue to promote all necessary measures to comply with its international obligations in light of the judgment.” Mexico based its request for interpretation on six arguments that are summarized below. 15. First, it noted that paragraph 103 of the judgment indicates that the Court does not have competence to determine individual responsibilities, despite which, in paragraph 177, in relation to paragraphs 115 and 116, it refers to military personnel as participants in the perpetration of the offenses denounced by Mrs. Fernández Ortega. In this regard, the State indicated that this “should be clarified, since it individualizes the number of persons who intervened and specifically indicates that they were soldiers.” The Court “identif[ied] three individuals who are part of a [military] institution as those responsible [for raping Mrs. Fernández Ortega],” a determination that, according to the State, “does not fall within the Court’s competence, [because] it is not incumbent on the Court to establish specific or individual criminal responsibility.” It also indicated that it is essential to consider that “in the domestic sphere, […] the case is still at the preliminary investigation stage, so that the determination of criminal responsibilities for the alleged offenses perpetrated against [Mrs.] Fernández Ortega will be derived from these investigations, including whether or not State agents were involved in the facts.” Consequently, it concluded that “as the investigation is ongoing […] direct criminal responsibility cannot be attributed to three State agents and, in particular, their status as soldiers or any other characteristics, such as the institution to which they belong, individualized or specified.” 16. Second, the State affirmed that the judgment “is not compatible with the criteria [of the Court] consisting in not attributing individual responsibilities since, on the one hand, […] it asserts that three military personnel participated in the rape […] and, on the other, it states that individualizing those responsible is not one of Court’s competences.” Hence, in its case law, the Court “has abstained […] from attributing individual responsibilities or making direct accusations.” The State reproduced several quotes by the Court in different cases where it had indicated that it was not a criminal court that analyzed individual criminal responsibility. 7 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 2, 2008. Series C No. 181, para. 26, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 5, para. 12.