* * Regarding the consultation in the terms of Article 64 of the Convention 55. The Court observes that the State, based on “Article 64 of the [American Convention], consults the Court on the interpretation of certain international treaties considering the systematic, dynamic, and evolving nature of international human rights law,” regarding “the [international] responsibility of non-state groups for violations of human rights and crimes against humanity.” This in seeking that the alleged dynamic interpretation “be included in the juridical framework within which [the Court] appraises the claims developed in the request for interpretation” in support “to its request for a change in the modality of compliance.” 56. This Tribunal considers that this aspect of the request for interpretation based on Article 64 of the American Convention, which regulates the filing of advisory opinions, and that does not refer to a specific aspect of the Judgment to be clarified, but to “the interpretation of certain treaties,” results as foreign to the present proceeding of interpretation as can be concluded from the American Convention itself, reason for which it will not issue an opinion regarding this matter in the present Judgment. * * * 57. With regard to the reparation measure related to the monument “The eye that cries” (supra paras. 12, 13, and 19), even though said information was presented outside of the term granted for it and was not part of the request for interpretation, the Court considered it appropriate to recall, as can be seen in paragraph 453 of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs that, regarding the request of the InterAmerican Commission and the common intervener on the construction of monuments and the creation of a park in the area of Canto Grande, it was the State who argued that “a monument (called the Eye that Cries) has already been built in favor of all the victims of the conflict in a public place within the capital of the Republic and it is the object of continuous acts of commemoration.” In attention to said argument of the State, the Court ordered the reparation measure established in the Judgment. In order to overcome the difficulty informed of by Peru in its brief of February 29, 2008, the Court accepts that the State create a park or build a monument that can satisfy the sense and purpose of the reparation measure ordered by the Tribunal in its Judgment. The State has a one-year term as of the notification of the present Judgment to comply with this measure. V DETERMINATION OF VICTIMS AND RIGHT TO THE REPARATION MEASURES ORDERED IN THE JUDGMENT (REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF VICTIMS 16