I REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On November 21, 2018, the Inter-American Court issued the judgment in this case, which was notified to the parties and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) on December 18 of the same year. 2. On March 18, 2019, the victims’ representatives submitted a request for an interpretation related to clarifications of the scope of the provisions to determine the payment in equity for consequential damages. 3. On March 18, 2019, the State submitted a request for interpretation regarding the investigation of the alleged acts of torture regarding Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval. 4. On March 28, 2019, in accordance with Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Secretariat forwarded the aforementioned requests for interpretation to the parties and to the Commission and granted them a term no later than 12 April 2019 to present the written arguments they deem pertinent. On April 12, 2019, the representatives forwarded their arguments. That same day, the Commission requested an extension for the presentation of its arguments, which was granted. On April 29, 2019, on expiry of the extended term, the Commission requested a new extension to submit its brief, which was not granted. The State did not present written arguments. II JURISDICTION 5. Article 67 of the American 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 that said request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” 6. Pursuant to the aforementioned article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its judgments. In order to examine the requests for interpretation and decide in this regard, this Court must have, if possible, the same composition that it had when issuing the respective judgment, in accordance with Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is made up of the same judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation has been requested. III ADMISSIBILITY 7. The Court is responsible for verifying whether the requests submitted by the representatives and by the State meet the requirements established in the rules applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely, Article 67 of the aforementioned Convention, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure. Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 8. The Court notes that both the representatives and the State submitted their requests for interpretation within the ninety-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention, since they were submitted on March 18, 2019, respectively, and the parties were notified of the judgment on December 18, 2018. Therefore, the request is admissible with regards to the term of its presentation. As for the other requirements, the Inter-American Court will carry out the respective analysis of the merit of said requests in the following chapter. -2-