45. The Court considered that, even though they were “clear in the scope and content” of that stated in their previous Judgment on reparations in the case of Blake, it was “useful to explain the matters presented by the State in order to dispel any doubt” in this sense.35 In effect, even though the judgment of a tribunal is final and not susceptible to modifications, nothing prevents its purpose from provoking any matter in the form of a request presented to the tribunal for the interpretation of said judgment.36 46. "Sense" and "scope" are not, in my opinion, suitable for a dogmatic or restrictive predetermination, which leads to a single, standard conclusion. On the contrary, the “sense” is the understanding or reason formed when distinguishing something, regarding which an opinion or interpretation is issued.37 The "scope" refers instead to the meaning or effect or transcendence of something.38 Therefore, the sense and the scope are, in my understanding, more directly related to the cognoscente subject than to the cognoscible object. As such, for their determination emphasis falls on human reason, that is, on the exercise of reason and persuasion. 47. In an international human rights court, such as this Court, reason and persuasion, in my understanding, necessarily prevail over the production (of judgments). Reason and persuasion are imposed per se, and cannot be captured by statistical data. What the latter does not reveal is the time and effort of an international tribunal, such as the InterAmerican Court, dedicated to their task of reasoning and persuading, in order to substantiate their decisions and make justice. 48. For example, the famous case of Bámaca Velásquez versus Guatemala (Judgments on merits, 11.25.2000, and of reparations, 02.22.2002), had four public hearings before this Court (on merits and reparations), which implied eight days of hearing.39 Between 1987 and 2002, eleven cases had three public hearings each, on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations (Velásquez Rodríguez versus Honduras, Godínez Cruz versus Honduras, Neira Alegría et al. versus Perú, Caballero Delgado and Santana versus Colombia, Loayza Tamayo versus Peru, Castillo Páez versus Peru, Paniagua Morales et al. versus Guatemala, Cesti Hurtado versus Peru, Cantoral Benavides versus Peru, Durand and Ugarte versus Peru, and Las Palmeras versus Colombia). . 35 Reimbursement of expenses in the processing of the case. . S. Rosenne, Interpretation, Revision and Other Recourse from International Judgments and Awards, Leiden, Nijhoff (Series "International Litigation in Practice", vol. I), 2007, pp. 1 and 4-5. 36 . Cf. Real Academia Española, Diccionario de la Lengua Española, 21a. ed., volume I, Madrid, R.A.E., 1992, p. 1864; Diccionario Océano de la Lengua Española, Barcelona, Ed. Océano, [2003], pp. 1023-1024; G. Gómez de Silva, Breve Diccionario Etimológico de la Lengua Española, México, El Colegio de México/Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1996 [5a. reimpr.], p. 634. 37 . Cf. Real Academia Española, Diccionario de la Lengua Española, op. cit. supra n. (26), p. 87. 38 . June 16, 17, and 18, 1998; October 15, 1998; November 22 and 23, 1998; and November 28 and 29, 2001. 39 14