3. On February 18, 2019, on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Registrar forwarded copies of the request for interpretation to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State of Venezuela,” “the State” or “Venezuela”) and the Inter-American Commission, inviting them to submit any written arguments they deem relevant by March 19, 2019. 4. On March 19 and March 22, 2019, the State and the Inter-American Commission, respectively, submitted their written arguments regarding the request for interpretation filed by the victims’ representatives. II JURISDICTION 5. Article 67 of the Convention establishes 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. 6. In conformity with this article, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its judgments. When reviewing a request for interpretation and deciding in that regard, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment, pursuant to Article 68.3 of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the judges Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, President; Eduardo Vio Grossi, Vice President; and Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Elizabeth Odio Benito, Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni and L. Patricio Pazmiño Freire. III ADMISSIBILITY 7. The Court must verify whether the request submitted by the representatives meets the requirements set forth in the rules applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely: Article 67 of the Convention, cited above, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which indicates that: 1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits, or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which interpretation is requested. […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 8. Furthermore, Article 31.3 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 9. The Court notes that the victims’ representatives filed the request for interpretation of the judgment on February 15, 2019, within the term of 90 days set forth in Article 67 of the Convention, since notification took place on November 16, 2018. Consequently, the request is admissible as regards to the term for presentation. As for the other requirements, the Court will perform the corresponding analysis in its examination of the contents of this request for interpretation in the next chapter. 2