for the same the arguments presented by the parties that refer to matters of law and their characteristics, whose nature and scope can be clearly concluded from the requests made by those who ask for the interpretation,” without the need for clarifications or complementary precisions. In this regard, “the Court goes by the nature and scope of the request for interpretation pursuant to the Inter-American ordinance, which does not imply a new presentation of facts or juridical consideration regarding these, additional to those presented by the parties in the case on merits and analyzed by the Tribunal for the purposes of the corresponding Judgment.” 11. On November 22, 2007 the State sent a note in which it made reference to the Secretariat’s letter of November 5, 2007 and it stated that “understanding […] that the Court would be in the condition to know of and decide on the requests for interpretation presented,” it reiterated that expressed in its previous briefs. 12. On February 29, 2008 the State sent “additional information” regarding its request for interpretation of the Judgment. In said brief the State informed and sent a copy of a newspaper of February 25, 2008, which refers to the arrest and processing of a person that appears in Appendix 2 of the Judgment of November 25, 2006 and reproduces “what were the statements offered” by said person before a public prosecutor with regard to its alleged relationship with Sendero Luminoso. Similarly, the State enclosed a letter of the author of the monument “The Eye that Cries”, who stated that she hoped that the act of engraving the names of the victims of the case of La Cantuta in said monument “is not considered a precedent so that the same could happen with the victims of the Castro Castro [P]rison. To be more precise, not with those persons who have a proven criminal record of crimes against humanity […].” 13. On April 3, 2008 the common intervener presented observations to the State’s brief of February 29, 2008. She stated that “it is clear” that Peru “has the right [to] criminally investigate any person the State considers has committed a crime, pursuant to the law;” however, the case of the person referred to by the State does not allow it to “generalize an alleged criminal behavior and extend a criminal behavior to other people benefited in the judgment […].” She mentioned that the State is making a generalization that violates elemental considerations of the due process of law and ignores that the people she represents “have made clear, throughout the litigation of the case […] their rejection of Sendero Luminoso” and that the same “have confronted any position that has tried to distort the sense of the case […].” She stated that the incident of the arrest informed by Peru “is an excuse to try to justify non-compliance of the judgment by the Peruvian State with regard to victims that have no relationship whatsoever with [S]endero [L]uminoso.” Likewise, she informed over several procedures carried out before the State for compliance of the Judgment, all of which had been unsuccessful. Regarding that informed on “The Eye that Cries”, among other considerations, the common intervener indicated that it was “precisely the Peruvian State who proposed to the […] Court that it include in [‘The Eye that Cries’] the names of the inmates murdered in the Castro Castro [Prison] […],” and she recalled that both she and those she represents had requested “that a green area with trees be built as a symbolic measure of satisfaction.” Among the considerations made when choosing a park with trees “was precisely not giving way to political uses foreign to [their] position to the measure of a symbolic nature;” a green park did not try to legitimize anything different to “a message of life.” 4