Sean O’Brien, representatives of a group of victims who are not the common intervener of the representatives in this case. 2 I PRESENTATION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On November 25, 2006 the Court issued the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs in this case. Said Judgment was notified to the parties on December 20, 2006. 2. On March 16, 2007 the State presented a request for interpretation of the Judgment, pursuant to Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. The State made reference to six aspects of the Judgment “to be clarified or interpreted”: one of them refers to the content of two paragraphs from the section on proven facts (infra para. 28); three matters refer to the compliance of three measures of non-repetition (infra para. 29); and the final two refer to payment of the compensations (infra para. 30). Additionally, the request included a section named “Some final considerations”, different to the chapter on “Matters to be clarified or interpreted”, in which the State does not request the interpretation or clarification of a specific aspect of the Judgment, but instead it asks the Court about “the [international] responsibility of non-state groups for the violation of human rights and crimes against humanity.” (infra para. 32) Finally, in its request the State asked for the holding of a “public hearing to support [its] request for interpretation,” and it reiterated said request on June 6th and July 31, 2007 (infra para. 10). 3. On March 20, 2007 the representatives presented a request for interpretation of the Judgment, pursuant to Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the Rules of Procedure, in which they referred to three aspects of the Judgment regarding the determination of the victims and reparations ordered in the Judgment (infra para. 58). 4. On May 9, 2007 the Institute for Legal Defense (ILD) and the National Human Rights Coordinator of Peru presented a brief in their capacity of amici curiae with regard to “the request for interpretation […] presented by the Peruvian State” in the present case. 5. On May 11, 2007, pursuant to that stated in Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following instructions given by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) sent a Article 23 subparagraphs 2 and 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that “when there are several alleged victims, next of kin or duly accredited representatives, they shall designate a common intervener who shall be the only person authorized to present pleadings, motions and evidence during the proceedings, including the public hearings” and in case “of disagreement, the Court shall make the appropriate ruling.” In the processing of the present case the victims were reunited in two groups, one called Canto Grande, whose representatives were who presented one of the requests for interpretation (who the Tribunal refers to as “the representatives”) and the other group with the majority of the victims, represented by Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta, who is the common intervener of the representatives of the victims (who the Tribunal refers to as “the common intervener” in this Judgment). 2 2