23. That said, the Court observes that the representatives’ request for interpretation, in
addition to asking for clarification of the meaning of the sixth operative paragraph, questions
the conclusions reached in the expert report of October 18, 2011. In this regard, the Court
considers that it is not for an interpretation of judgment to determine the scope of the
conclusions contained in the said report because these have already been debated by the
parties in the domestic procedural instances, and addressed by the Court in paragraphs 108
to 116 of the judgment. Consequently, the Court considers that this request exceeds the
purposes of interpretation established in Article 67 of the Convention because it does not relate
to the meaning and scope of the judgment, but rather to a matter concerning the merits.
Therefore, the Court declares the representatives’ request for interpretation in this regard
inadmissible.
B. Scope of the measure of reparations established in section B.3
B.1 Arguments of the parties and observations of the Commission
24. The representatives asked the Court to rule on the meaning of paragraph 226 of the
judgment as regards the phrase “any other information or document necessary to fully execute
the judgment issued in their favor.” Specifically, they indicated that, given that paragraph 225
refers to “beneficiaries of a judicial ruling or an administrative decision – either in the context
of an amparo proceeding or any other judicial remedy or administrative procedure against the
application of Decree 673,” they asked the Court to clarify whether, in this phrase in paragraph
226, the Inter-American Court was alluding to its own judgment of November 21, 2019, or
else to the judgments referred to in paragraphs 224 and 225 of its judgment, or to both types
of judgment. Similarly, they asked the Court to clarify whether the discharged or retired
employees of SUNAT who are in “a similar situation to the victims in this case,” but who are
only beneficiaries of an administrative rather than a judicial decision needed to obtain a judicial
ruling ordering the restitution of their right before being able to benefit from the Inter-American
Court’s decision in the eighth operative paragraph of the judgment.
25. The State also asked the Court to interpret paragraphs 225, 226, and 227, as well as
the eighth operative paragraph of the judgment. It asked the Court to clarify the content of
the judgment in relation to the scope, purpose and implications of the list ordered in the eighth
operative paragraph of the judgment, especially with regard to the non-pecuniary
consequences of the list, considering the expectations that this could give rise to among those
concerned. The State’s concerns refer fundamentally to the fact that the judgment did not
expressly indicate the purpose of the creation of the list, which could have an impact on
compliance with this requirement. The State asked the Court to clarify that the persons
registered on the nominal list ordered could not obtain, per se, any pecuniary benefit based on
their mere registration and, consequently, this would not result in pecuniary obligations for the
State. Thus, the State understood that the only beneficiaries of the judgment of the InterAmerican Court were the 598 persons listed as victims in Annex 2 to this judgment. The State
also asked the Court to clarify who were the persons referred to in paragraph 225 of the
judgment.
26. In addition, regarding the same measure of reparation, the State asked the Court to
clarify whether – as the State understood it – the persons included on the list ordered by the
judgment should have received a ruling from an administrative or judicial authority expressly
recognizing their compliance with all the legal requirements to obtain the right to a pension.
In this regard, the State indicated that, with regard to the list of “other persons who, while not
members of this association, are discharged or retired employees of SUNAT in a similar
situation to the victims in this case,” it understood that this meant that the list would include
beneficiaries of a judicial ruling or an administrative decision in which the authority: (i) declared
7