its investigations, as well as the conditions for publicizing its findings." They indicated that "these considerations, [...] for its reading and interpretation fall within the scope of the Court’s decision on reparations [but] are not covered by an operative paragraph in the judgment.” In this regard, they alleged that "the lack of a corresponding operative paragraph raises the question of whether paragraphs 97 and 98 amount to a mandatory measure of reparation ordered by the Inter-American Court,” and therefore, “the omission of the correlating operative paragraph puts in question the validity and obligatory nature of the creation of the aforementioned Working Group [and] leaves unclear whether the measure was adopted unanimously or if there was some disagreement [as well as] raises questions as to whether this measure should or should not be supervised by the Court in the framework of its jurisdiction to conduct comprehensive monitoring of compliance with judgments.” 13. The State indicated that the representatives’ request would entail "the rectification of the operative part of the judgment, due to an omission regarding the inclusion of a measure ordered." However, it indicated that “[b]eyond referring to the most appropriate way to address the representatives' request, [...] the Paraguayan State emphasizes that in the [present] case [...] it has accepted its international responsibility", and therefore its position "has been not to oppose the creation of this group". Finally, it emphasized that the measures ordered in the judgment were important for “redressing the rights violations committed to the detriment of Mr. Leguizamón Zaván, his wife, daughter and children" and that its “compliance contributes to ensuring that facts similar to what took place in this case are not repeated in the Republic of Paraguay." 14. The Commission did not submit any observations on the request for interpretation. A.2. Considerations of the Court 15. Regarding the obligation to investigate and the creation of the Working Group ordered in the judgment, this Court recalls that paragraph 97 of the judgment provided as follows: 97. In the context of the present judgment, the Court has determined that the investigation and subsequent prosecution of the facts of April 26, 1991, did not meet the standards of due diligence, and in addition, it failed to establish the circumstances of what happened. However, it is impossible to continue investigating the Brazilian citizens who allegedly participated in the crime because the State did not diligently take the actions necessary to secure judicial cooperation from Brazil. Additionally, the crime is time-barred in Brazil. Therefore, in its place, the creation of a Working Group is ordered to establish the circumstances of Mr. Leguizamón Zaván’s murder. The Group shall report on (i) the context in which it took place, including the security situation in the city of Pedro Juan Caballero and the border area between Brazil and Paraguay; (ii) the other murders of journalists in Paraguay committed after the murder of Mr. Leguizamón Zaván, as a consequence of his work; and (iii) the failures in the investigation of Mr. Leguizamón Zaván’s murder in order to propose measures aimed at guaranteeing the safety of journalists and ending impunity. 7 16. In addition, regarding the Working Group, paragraph 98 of the judgment states the following: 98. The Working Group will be made up of five experts with the technical capacity, moral suitability, and specific knowledge necessary to perform this work, at least one of whom must be a journalist. One of its members will be from the Directorate of Truth, Justice, and Reparations of the Ombudsperson's Office. This individual will coordinate the group and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 15, 2022. Series C No. 473, para. 97. 7 4