11 Court’s judgment. Furthermore, the Court underscores that, in its request for interpretation, the State itself affirmed that “in the eleventh operative paragraph, the Court ordered [the State] to conduct the investigations and, as appropriate, to file criminal proceedings against those who are found responsible so that the competent judicial authority may decide whether criminal responsibility exists and, if appropriate, apply the legal punishments and consequences.” Thus, the Court ordered that the competent authorities of the domestic system of justice determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities. Consequently, there is no lack of clarity in the Court’s decision in the operative paragraph in question, and the State has revealed this in its arguments, so that the request submitted by Mexico in this regard is inadmissible. 31. Moreover, the Court observes that the State is attempting to make the Court rule on factual and legal issues upon which it has already adopted a decision (supra para. 12). Specifically, it indicated that, since the preliminary inquiry into the facts is underway in the domestic jurisdiction, investigations into the alleged offenses committed continue and they will determine the corresponding responsibilities, as well as whether State agents were involved. The foregoing reveals that Mexico questioned the Court’s competence to establish the proven facts in this case and the consequent declaration of international responsibility. This Court’s case law has established repeatedly that a request for interpretation of judgment shall not be used as a means to contest the decision of which an interpretation is sought (supra para. 11). Consequently, the interpretation requested on this aspect is also inadmissible. b) Material competence of the Court 32. Notwithstanding the above, and with regard to the Court’s alleged lack of competence to determine individual criminal responsibilities, the Court advises the State that its consistent case law is expressly affirmed in the judgment. From reading the judgment, it is clear that the Court has not exceeded its competence, nor has it determined individual criminal responsibilities. In its request for interpretation brief, Mexico equates the determination of the State’s international responsibility for the acts of its agents with the determination of individual criminal responsibilities. The latter would require, among other matters, the individualization and identification of the alleged perpetrators and their respective criminal punishments, which cannot be deduced from the judgment. In fact, the Court did not evaluate the conduct of possible authors of the facts under domestic criminal law, nor did it include dogmatic reasoning or arguments on the interpretation of criminal law or rule on the punishment or what this should consist of. To the contrary, in accordance with the basic principles of international law, in order to establish whether the State’s international responsibility is entailed in a case submitted to its consideration, the Inter-American Court must determine whether its agents have committed an act or omission. Thus, the decision as to whether the State has incurred international responsibility entails the examination of the acts of the agents of the different State organs and bodies. Consequently, in any case in which the Court has found the international responsibility of the State concerned, it has found that this arose from an act or omission of one or more State agents. c) Presumption of innocence 33. Regarding the Court’s alleged violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, this Court has indicated that this principle is one of the pillars of judicial