8 applied, the existence of aggravating factors, the identification of masterminds or the concurrence of offenses, [but rather it is the] State that […] must elucidate [these matters]. To claim […] that the clarifications made by the Court in its judgment regarding the military entity to which the attackers belonged […] and their number was equal to determining criminal responsibilities can only be the result of a wrongful interpretation, denoting disagreement with the judgment.” It also reveals an erroneous understanding of the particular nature of criminal responsibility, which cannot be determined without the full identification of the individuals on whom this responsibility falls, a matter not addressed in the judgment.” In addition, and given that the Court “respects the domestic jurisdiction, it is assumed that guarantees of due process will be respected in the investigation and trial with regard to the facts. To claim the contrary [would] imply indicating that [the Court] was [potentially] responsible for human rights violations arising from the execution of the mandate that the Convention confers on it.” The representatives also affirmed that the Court had not incurred in any form of prejudgment. This would only have occurred “if the matter upon which it had ruled […] were the same as that upon which the Mexican ministerial and jurisdictional instances will have to rule.” The Court deals with State responsibility, based on the American Convention, and the national jurisdictional authorities with subjective criminal responsibility, in application of the provisions of domestic law. 24. Finally, the representatives asserted that the State had interpreted “the judgment in bad faith, in order to justify the presentation of its request.” The judgment clearly established that the acts committed by the military personnel against the victim were not limited to those verified in the sphere of the search for justice, but rather encompassed what happened when Mrs. Fernández Ortega was raped and tortured. This is so evident from the judgment that to reach the State’s conclusions “could be the result of a process contrary to the principle of pacta sunt servanda.” The State “used a deliberately wrongful interpretation to argue an alleged lack of clarity in the judgment that in actual fact was non-existent.” The meaning and scope of the judgment are clear and a request for interpretation is only admissible if the aspects of the judgment whose meaning requires clarification are related to the operative paragraphs of the judgment. In this case, the Court not only ordered the State to conduct the pertinent investigation into the facts, but also indicated criteria to be followed in complying with this obligation, obviating the “need for the respective paragraphs to be clarified by the Court’s interpretation.” Based on the foregoing, the representatives asked the Court to declare the State’s request inadmissible. 2. Considerations of the Court 25. The Court observes that, although the State’s assertions were divided into six sections, the truth is that Mexico’s allegations do not correspond to “six arguments,” but rather to a repetition, that can be summarized under the following aspects: (a) the competence of the Court to determine international responsibility in contrast to individual responsibility and the determination of the facts made by the Court in this case, and (b) the alleged violation by the Court of the principle of the presumption of innocence. The Inter-American Court will refer to these aspects, as well as to the interpretation of the expression “act committed by military personnel” questioned by the State. a) General considerations