both categories included everything that would fall under or emerge from a labor relationship during the period in question. 8 Therefore, the representative's request is denied. B. Request for interpretation in relation to the validity of the sanction imposed on the victim B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 19. The representative argued that because the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the National Police ordering the dismissal of Mr. Mina Cuera from the position of police officer was declared arbitrary by the Inter-American Court, in his opinion, ��there is no [...] order of dismissal [against the victim] that could have legal effects subsequent to the judgment.” 20. He asked that, given that the dismissal of Mr. Mina Cuero has been declared arbitrary, the Court clarify whether the sanction issued by the Disciplinary Court on October 25, 2000, is still in force. He stated that if not—that is, if the act violating his rights remains in force— the State would need to issue an “administrative cancellation” based on the Court’s judgment to establish the victim’s status as a police officer who has opted for voluntary retirement, effective on a date subsequent to the judgment, as the violation of his rights persisted precisely until the issues of the administrative cancellation. 21. The State indicated that the representative was raising a matter of the merits that neither can nor should be analyzed through a request for interpretation. It added that the representative's intent is to modify the judgment, which is inadmissible. It asked that the request for interpretation be dismissed. 22. The Commission indicated that it would be pertinent for the Court to clarify the administrative situation of the victim with respect to his dismissal to facilitate compliance with the judgment, given that the judgment concluded that the sanction imposed was the result of multiple violations of the American Convention. B.2. Considerations of the Court 23. The representative has asked for clarification as to whether, as of the judgment, the sanction imposed by the Disciplinary Court dismissing the victim from the position of police officer remains in force. He stated that should the sanction be understood to remain in force, it would be necessary to order the State to issue an “administrative cancellation” based on the Court’s judgment to establish the victim’s status as a police officer who has opted for voluntary retirement. 24. Regarding this, the Court notes that the representative refers in his request for interpretation to aspects that were not analyzed in the judgment due to a lack of specific arguments during the processing of this case. Effectively, the representative did not make a timely and concrete claim to reparations during the procedural phase that the interpretation would require, for which reason a pronouncement by this Court of the type sought is not possible. Consequently, the request is dismissed. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS Cf. Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 433, para. 26. 8 5