A. Determination of the number of victims and the scope of the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment A.1 Arguments of the parties and observations of the Commission 13. The representatives asked the Court to clarify the identity and number of persons who should be understood to be beneficiaries of the reparations because paragraphs 120, 121 and 138 of the judgment refer to 604 persons, while paragraphs 122, 123 and the fourth operative paragraph refer to 598 personas and one of them is mentioned twice. The representatives also asked the Court to clarify the import given by the judgment to the expert report of October 18, 2011, based on which the concepts indicated in the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment should be paid. Regarding this request, they asked the Court to clarify whether the State’s obligation to “pay, immediately, the concepts that remain pending under the provisions of the judgment of October 25, 1993, pursuant to paragraph 217 of this judgment” meant that this payment should abide by the terms of conclusions No. 1 and No. 4 of the expert report of the C.S.J.L. [Supreme Court of Justice of Lima] of October 18, 2011, or whether the decision meant something else. Among their arguments, the representatives indicated that the said expert report referred to situations that had not been covered in the 1993 judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice and were therefore unrelated to the equalized pension that was the object of the execution of the amparo judgment. 14. Regarding the representatives’ request, the State indicated that the number of victims had been a constant issue during the debate at the domestic level. It argued that the InterAmerican Court had clearly and definitively settled the dispute between the parties on this point, and this was why “Annex 2. List of victims in this case” of the judgment of November 21, 2019, had determined the identity (with first and last names) of the victims in the instant case. The State argued that there could be no doubt that the Court considered that this contested issue had been decided judicially in the domestic sphere, and that, when adopting the expert report of October 18, 2011, the Constitutional Court, in a judgment of April 23, 2019, considered as beneficiaries of the judgment of October 25, 1993, those persons listed in the annexes to the said expert report, five hundred and ninety-eight (598) persons, who had initially been identified in the ruling of June 3, 2005, and, subsequently, in the expert report adopted by the judgment of April 23, 2019. Therefore, only those five hundred and ninetyeight (598) persons could be considered presumed victims of the violations alleged in the instant case. 15. The State also argued that it was not appropriate to question, by interpretation of judgment, the expert report of October 18, 2011, regarding the sum calculated in this report or the amount that would correspond to each victim, especially if this had not been challenged in the supranational court. It argued that the representatives had mentioned aspects relating to a debate that belonged to the domestic sphere and, regarding which, a judicial ruling had already been made that approved the said expert report; therefore, it was not possible to change it, or to try and give another meaning to the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court in this case. It noted that the representatives’ request was not supported by a legal interpretation of the judgment, but by an attempt to question the sixth operative paragraph and paragraph 217. On this basis, the State argued that, in this regard, the request for interpretation should be declared inadmissible. 16. The Commission considered that, as indicated by the representatives, there appeared to be a contradiction in relation to the number of victims identified by the Inter-American Court in: (a) paragraphs 120 and 122 of its judgment (604 personas), and (b) paragraphs 121, 122 and the fourth operative paragraph of its judgment (598 personas). Additionally, the Commission took note that, as indicated by the representatives, the Court’s judgment listed 4