is paragraph 327 of the judgment and not paragraph 328 as established in the judgment due to the indicated error. The corresponding paragraph is below: 327. The amounts must be delivered according to the following criteria: (a) Fifty percent (50%) of the compensation corresponding to each victim will be distributed, in equal parts, among the children of the victim. If one or more of the children have already died, the part that corresponds to him or them will increase that of the other children of the same victim; (b) the other fifty percent (50%) of the compensation must be delivered to the person who was the spouse, partner or permanent partner of the victim, at the beginning of the disappearance or at the time of the victim's death, as appropriate; (c) in the event that the victim does not have children or a spouse, partner or permanent partner, what would have corresponded to the next of kin located in that category will be added to the part that corresponds to the other category; (d) in the event that the victim does not have children or a spouse or permanent partner, compensation for material damage will be delivered to his parents or, failing that, to his siblings in equal parts, and (e) in the event that the victim had no children, no spouse or partner, no parents, no siblings, the compensation must be paid to the heirs in accordance with domestic inheritance law. 15. Regarding the request for clarification regarding the family groups included in the payment in equity for consequential damages mentioned in paragraph 318, the Court considers that said paragraph is sufficiently clear and precise, since the judgment establishes that "The family groups correspond to Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal, Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval and Héctor Álvarez Sánchez and that they must be distributed to each group proportionally." B. Investigation of the alleged acts of torture regarding Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval 16. The State requested clarification within the framework of operative paragraph number 16 regarding the investigation into the alleged torture that Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval suffered, in accordance with the content of paragraphs 293 and 294 of the judgment, which declare the State responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, for the State's failure to comply with its obligation to investigate the events that occurred to the detriment of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval. In this regard, the State indicated that this order to initiate an investigation into the alleged torture suffered by Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval is not consistent with paragraphs 199 and 200 of the judgment, since in these paragraphs the Court recognized that the evidence submitted was not sufficient to prove that Mr. Omeara Miraval suffered mistreatment that could be considered torture. 17. The representatives pointed out that the State “intends to modify the provisions ordered by the Court in [the...] judgment” and considered that “it disagrees with the decision by the […] Court in relation to the State’s obligation to investigate the torture suffered by Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval.” Therefore, this is not a request for interpretation of the sentence, but rather an appeal, and the state request must be rejected. 18. In this regard, the Court established in paragraph 200 of the judgment that “the evidence submitted to this Court is not sufficient to prove that Mr. Omeara Miraval, while he was detained before his execution, suffered mistreatment that can be classified as acts of torture … notes… […however,…] that this conclusion is independent of the one the State may -4-