reach in the corresponding investigation.” Furthermore, that paragraph clearly refers to the questioned paragraph 294. Similarly, where relevant, paragraphs 31 and 33 of the judgment established that the State recognized, by omission, the failure to investigate the alleged torture suffered by Mr. Omeara Miraval while he was disappeared before his death. 19. In accordance with the foregoing, this Court notes that the text of paragraph 294 of the judgment is clear and precise, since it establishes that “in accordance with the provisions of domestic law, the Court considers that the State must initiate, within a reasonable time and with due diligence, the aforementioned investigation to clarify the alleged facts, and enable the participation of the victims involved in the events or through their representatives and enable access to the proceedings that are carried out.” 20. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the request made by the State (supra para. 16) does not correspond to the assumptions of interpretation established in Article 67 of the Convention, since it does not deal with the meaning or scope of the judgment, because the contested decision is precise and explicit in pointing out the obligation of the State to investigate the alleged acts of torture in the domestic jurisdiction. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 21. Therefore, THE COURT in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: unanimously, 1. To declare admissible the requests for interpretation of the judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, issued in the Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia, presented by the victims’ representatives and by the Republic of Colombia. 2. To dismiss as inadmissible the request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, issued in the Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia presented by the representatives of the victims, in the terms of paragraphs 14 and 15 of this judgment. 3. Dismiss as inadmissible the request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits, reparations and costs issued in the Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia, presented by the State, in the terms of paragraphs 18 to 20 of this judgment. 4. Order that the Secretariat of the Court notify this judgment of interpretation to the Republic of Colombia, the victims’ representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. -5-