copy of both requests for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) and to Mrs. Mónica Feria Tinta, common intervener for the victims’ representatives in this case (hereinafter “the common intervener”). Likewise, the Secretariat sent a copy of the State’s request for interpretation to the representatives and of the representatives’ request to the State, and informed the parties that they could present the written observations they considered appropriate no later than August 1, 2007. On that opportunity, it reminded the State that, pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[a] request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment.” 6. On July 31, 2007 the State presented its written arguments on the request for interpretation of the Judgment presented by the representatives and stated, inter alia, that the “Court must clarify the exclusion of Francisco Alcázar Miranda as an injured party,” which rejects the intent of the representatives to “give the next of kin not included in one of the suppositions established […] in the Judgment in question a period of time so they may be included in them […],” and that “the next of kin referred to in [the Judgment as beneficiaries of medical and psychological treatment] are those identified in appendix 2 [of the same] and eventually the inmates’ children verified in the time period granted.” 7. On August 1, 2007 the representatives presented their written arguments to the request for interpretation presented by the State, and they stated their “opposition […] to the Request for Interpretation presented by the State” with regard to the Judgment in the Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, asking the Tribunal to “[…] declare it inadmissible.” 8. On the same August 1, 2007 the Commission and the common intervener presented their written arguments regarding the requests for interpretation presented. The Inter-American Commission stated that the request presented by the State sought to modify certain aspects of the Judgment and include additional matters in the case. With regard to the request presented by the representatives, the Commission considered that, beyond the clarification on the classification of a specific person as a victim, the matters presented “[are] not a subject of interpretation of the judgment. On her part, the common intervener stated that the request presented by the State seeks to “propose the change of [certain] terms [of the Judgment] because it is not satisfied with them.” Regarding the request for interpretation presented by the representatives, the common intervener stated that “she does not consider that there is any doubt in the scope of the passages mentioned” by them in the Judgment. 9. On August 21, 2007 the common intervener forwarded a brief and several appendixes that presented arguments regarding the written pleadings presented by the Inter-American Commission and the State with regard to “the acceptability of the inclusion of victims or beneficiaries of the reparations in Appendix 2 [of the Judgment] not determined by the Court […].” 10. On November 5, 2007, pursuant to that decided by the majority of the Judges of the Court, the Secretariat responded to Peru’s request for a public hearing (supra para. 2). In said communication the State was informed that, pursuant to Article 59(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court determined that in order to decide on the present requests of interpretation it would follow “the written procedure, taking into account 3