B. Observations regarding operative paragraphs 10, 112 and 16 sixteen of the judgment B.1 Medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment B.1(a) Arguments of the parties and the Commission 18. Operative paragraph 10 of the judgment set forth that: The State shall provide, free of cost and immediately, appropriate, adequate and effective medical and psychological and/or psychiatric treatment to Linda Loaiza López Soto and to the members of her family who have been declared beneficiaries of this judgment, to be provided by professionals of their choice in Venezuela, pursuant to paragraph 293 of this judgment. 19. The representatives expressed that “the situation of the health system has worsened”; therefore, “the implementation of this measure will represent serious challenges for the victims.” In this regard, they requested “consider[ing] whether this service could be provided in another country, to be determined by the victim and her family.” 20. The State, on the other hand, claimed that “the representatives seek an inappropriate, deceitful means of using the request for interpretation of judgment to obtain a modification to the merits of the judgment, given that the decision under question clearly and expressly indicates that the State’s obligation is to provide, psychological and/or psychiatric care to Linda Loaiza López Soto and the family members declared beneficiaries, to be carried out in Venezuela.” B.1(b) Considerations of the Court 21. The Court points out that the question raised by the representatives (supra para. 19) does not agree with the grounds for interpretation set forth in Article 67 of the Convention, since it is not related to the meaning or scope of the judgment, but to “considering the provision of this service in another country,” which entails modifying the reparation ordered in the judgment. In this regard, in paragraphs 292 and 293 the Court noted that: 292. The Court notes that the representatives emphasized that “the medical care provided to Linda while she was in the country’s public hospitals to treat her physical and psychological ailments was neither opportune nor appropriate.” The[y] indicated that “her confidence in the public health system has been affected.” 293. Bearing in mind the preceding considerations, the Court finds it pertinent to order the State to provide, free of charge and immediately, appropriate, adequate and effective medical and psychological and/or psychiatric treatment to Linda Loaiza López Soto and the members of her family who have been declared beneficiaries of this judgment, which must be provided by professionals of their choice in Venezuela for the reasons indicated in the preceding paragraphs. This treatment must include the provision of any medicines they may eventually require free of charge. The beneficiaries have six months following notification of this judgment to advise the State of their intention to receive this measure and to indicate the institutions or professionals of their preference. 22. The Court deems that the text of the aforementioned paragraph is sufficiently clear and precise, since the judgment clearly establishes that the medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment must be provided by professionals chosen by the victims in Venezuela. This is in keeping with the representatives’ own request that “these treatments be provided by the professionals preferred by the victims, irrespective of whether they belon[g] to the private health sector or to international organizations.”6 In sum, the Court notes that under the guise of a request for interpretation, the representatives’ stance reveals disagreement with the Court’s decision, since it seeks to modify the reparation measure ordered in the judgment. Therefore, it Cf. Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 289. 6 5