and grounds that the Inter-American Court had taken into consideration to validate the victims in the case […] who were included in Annexes II, III, IV, V, VI, VII and VIII.” COPADEH asked that the Court specify “the formal and case law criteria” it had considered in order to include individuals who were currently deceased as victims in its annexes, as this would constitute a “lack of legal certainty in the judgment.” The State also indicated that the Court had apparently failed to consider either Guatemala’s arguments or the evidence provided and, in particular, had apparently not “taken into account or into consideration the consolidated list of victims who had been duly recognized by the representatives and the State of Guatemala in the Friendly Settlement Agreement signed on December 18, 2007.” Lastly, the State indicated that it was not a “generator of wealth” and, “consequently, the disproportion in relation to what had already been established prejudice[d] the public purse.” 14. The representatives indicated that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it was incumbent on the Commission to identify the victims in a case before the Court precisely and at the appropriate procedural moment, even though, at times, the Court had also considered individuals who had not been alleged as such in the Commission’s Merits Report as victims. They recalled that, according to Article 67 the American Convention, the judgment handed down by the Court is “final and not subject to appeal.” They added that the list that appeared in the Friendly Settlement Agreement of December 18, 2007, could not be the sole means of proof. Likewise, they considered that the fact that some victims had died during the friendly settlement process did not prevent them from being recognized as victims in the proceedings before the inter-American system of human rights. Lastly, they asserted that, at this procedural stage and in a manner that was time-barred, the State was attempting “to call into question the condition of victim of certain individuals” and, therefore, asked that the request for interpretation filed by the State be rejected. 15. The Commission indicated that, in paragraphs 129 and 136 of the judgment, the Court had analyzed the State’s arguments concerning its discrepancy with the list provided by the Commission, and regarding the probative value of the said list that appeared in the Friendly Settlement Agreement of December 18, 2007. Regarding the State’s consideration in relation to the compensation established in favor of the deceased individuals, the Commission indicated that, in paragraphs 169 to 177, the Court had determined the compensation based on a series of criteria for its payment and also recalled that the Court’s case law has established that the compensation must be paid to the victims, or to their heirs should they be deceased. A.2. Considerations of the Court 16. The Court notes that the request for interpretation filed by the State focuses on its disagreement with the list of victims determined by the Court and, consequently, with the assessment of the respective evidence. The Court considers that the State’s request does not correspond to the criteria for interpretation established in Article 67 of the Convention, because it does not relate to the meaning or scope of the judgment, but rather to a renewed analysis of the evidence based on a repetition of arguments that the State had already submitted to the Court prior to the delivery of its judgment. Thus, the Court notes that paragraph 22 of the judgment sets out the State’s arguments concerning its disagreement with the lists of victims provided by the representatives and by the Commission, and the alleged validity of the 2007 Friendly Settlement Agreement. After analyzing the arguments of the parties and the Commission, together with the evidence in the case file, in paragraph 25, the Court indicated that it would consider that the victims were “those duly identified persons who have been named by the Commission on its lists annexed to the Merits Report and/or by the representatives on their lists attached to their pleadings and motions brief, who have suffered any human rights violations derived from the massacre in the village of Los Josefinos regarding which the Court has 4