2 reparation established in the [J]udgment.” 2. On May 11, 2007, pursuant to that stated in Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following instructions of the Tribunal, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) sent a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission), and the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) and informed them that they had a non-postponable term up to August 1, 2007 to present the written arguments considered appropriate. Likewise, it reminded the State that, pursuant to that stated in Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[t]he request for interpretation does not suspend the execution of the Judgment.” On July 31 and August 1, 2007 the State and the Commission presented, respectively, the mentioned written arguments. II JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 3. Article 67 of the Convention states that: [t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 4. Pursuant to the above-cited provision, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its judgments. When carrying out the exam of the request for interpretation, the Tribunal must have, whenever possible, the same composition it had when issuing the corresponding Judgment (Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges2 who delivered the Judgment, whose interpretation has been requested. III ADMISSIBILITY 5. It corresponds to the Court to verify if the terms of the requests for interpretation comply with the requirements established in the applicable norms, specifically Article 67 of the Convention and 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 6. Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure states that: 1. The request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. 2. The Secretary shall transmit the request for interpretation to the States that are 2 The Judge Oliver Jackman, who due to reasons of force majeure had not participated in the deliberation and signing of the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of November 29, 2006, died on January 25, 2007. The Judge Diego García-Sayán, of Peruvian nationality, excused himself from hearing the present case pursuant to Articles 19(2) of the Statute and 19 of the Rules of Procedure, reason for which, pursuant to that stated in Articles 10 of the Statute of the Court and 18 of the Rules of Procedure, the State appointed Mr. Fernando Vidal Ramírez as judge ad hoc to participate in the consideration of the case, and on this occasion he forms part of the Tribunal, in the same condition as in the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs. Due to reasons of force majeure, the Judge Alirio Abreu Burelli did not participate in the deliberation and signing of the present Judgment.