in the Merits Report. Thus, although these persons were considered in the judgment of June 3, 2005, they were not considered presumed victims in the proceedings before the Court and, therefore, were not counted among the number of victims in this case. 19. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, in paragraphs 74, 120, 121, 122 and 138 of the judgment there is a material error as regards the number of beneficiaries referred to in the judgment of June 3, 2005. This error is the result of the fact that, although the said judgment mentions the existence of 604 beneficiaries, one of them is mentioned twice. This reiteration was transferred to the judgment. In this way, although throughout the judgment, 604 persons are mentioned as the total number of beneficiaries of the judgment of June 3, 2005, the Court notes that the name of Grimanesa Barrera Cárdenas was counted twice, so that the total number of persons should be 603. Also, in paragraph 122, it should be understood that the beneficiaries of the judgment of June 3, 2005, are 603 and not 598. Likewise, the Court notes that Annex 2 of the judgment refers to 598 persons as the total number of victims in the case, when really this number should be 597; in other words, the 597 persons mentioned in the judgment of June 3, 2005, who were included in the Merits Report. This error was due to the fact that the name of Emma Raquel Llamas Ordaya was listed twice in Annex 2 of the judgment. Consequently, based on the considerations in the preceding paragraph (supra para. 18), the number of victims in the case is 597 and not 598. 20. Second, regarding the request for interpretation of the scope of the sixth operative paragraph, the Court reiterates the contents of the judgment: [Operative paragraph No. 6] The State shall pay, immediately, the concepts that remain pending under the provisions of the judgment of October 25, 1993, pursuant to paragraph 217 of this judgment. 21. The Court considers that the question raised by the representatives regarding the scope of the sixth operative paragraph is answered clearly in paragraph 217 of the judgment, which indicates the following: 217. In this case, the Court has concluded that the State violated the right to judicial protection because it had not guaranteed the full execution, without unjustified delays, of the judgment of October 25, 1993. The Court determined that, even though approximately 27 years had passed since it was handed down, the process of executing this judgment was still ongoing because the reimbursements corresponding to the equalization of the victims’ pensions while the Third Transitory Provision of Decree 673 was applicable had still not been paid. Consequently, the Court determined that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the necessary means to achieve the execution of the judgment of October 25, 1993, contrary to the obligations established in Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention. The Court has also concluded that the period of 27 years that has passed since the delivery of the said judgment without the State having guaranteed full compliance at this time was not reasonable. Therefore, the Court orders the State to guarantee the effective and immediate payment of the reimbursements pending payment owing to the provisions of the judgment of October 25, 1993, as established in the expert report of October 18, 2011, which was adopted by rulings of June 13, 2017, and April 23, 2019. 22. The foregoing leaves no doubt that the payment of the pending reimbursements, under the provisions of the judgment of October 25, 1993, must be made in the context of compliance with the measure of restitution ordered by the Inter-American Court in the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment, “as established in the expert report of October 18, 2011,” understanding this integrally. 6