2 According to this article, the Court is competent to interpret its judgments and, when examining a request for interpretation, should, if possible, have the same composition that it had when it delivered the respective judgment (Article 58(3) of the Rules of Procedure). On this occasion, the Court is composed of the judges who delivered the judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations, interpretation of which has been requested by the State. II INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND ITS PURPOSE 2. On October 6, 2003, the State submitted a request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations, in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 3. In the request for interpretation, the State formulated considerations on the following aspects of the judgment of June 7, 2003: the composition of the Court at the public hearing and at the time the judgment was delivered; the Court’s assessment of the evidence and determination of the proven facts in the judgment; the determination of the reparations and the respective beneficiaries. It also requested the Court to consider that, although the appeal for review does not exist in the American Convention, or in the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights1 (hereinafter “the Statute”), or in the Rules of Procedure of the Court, this is not sufficient grounds for rejecting the said remedy, because “in the instant case, [relevant facts] have occurred that the State considers fraudulent”; consequently, the State also files an appeal for review of the judgment that was delivered in relation to the Court’s consideration of the document entitled “Informe Secreto” [Secret report], which was attached to the application submitted by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the InterAmerican Commission”) as attachment 1. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 4. In a note of October 7, 2003, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) transmitted a copy of the request for interpretation to the InterAmerican Commission and to the representative of the victim and his next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives of the victims”) and, in accordance with Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, invited them to present any written arguments they deemed pertinent by October 31, 2003, at the latest. 5. On October 31, 2003, the Commission and the representatives of the victims presented their briefs with observations on the request for interpretation of judgment in the instant case. IV ADMISSIBILITY 6. As indicated above (supra 2 and 3), the State requested the Court to interpret and review the judgment it had delivered on June 7, 2003. 1 Adopted by Resolution No. 448 of the OAS General Assembly at its ninth session, held in La Paz, Bolivia, in October 1979.