5 judicial or administrative decisions which fall within the purview of the national organs that comprise each country's domestic jurisdiction. According to the State, that note was not challenged and constitutes a part of the proceeding, even though it was "deliberately" excluded from the acts mentioned in the text of the judgment. Consequently, the Court committed an error in iudicando in taking a decision contrary to a previous decision in the same case and ruled on a matter which falls outside its competence. The State also requested the Court to clarify how the order for Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's release is to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Peruvian domestic law. Lastly, the State claimed that the Court should withdraw all the points contained of operative paragraph 5) of that judgment. d. that any request to the Court must be based on the preceding events in the proceeding before the Inter-American Commission, which ends with the Report in which it concludes that a State has violated specific rights to a person's detriment, as did Report No. 20/94 in which it declared that Peru was responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty and integrity and judicial guarantees set forth in Articles 7, 5 and 25 of the American Convention; that the applications lodged by the Commission in this case, exceeding the scope of that Report, included aspects which were not germane to it, such as the violation of the rights embodied in Article 8, paragraphs 1, 2(d), 2(g), 3 and 4 of the Convention and that the Court not only admitted that claim into the case but declared it out of order, which obliges the Tribunal to provide an interpretation on this matter. It further stated that operative paragraph three of the judgment was inconsistent with paragraph 64, since in the latter the Court declared that there was no evidence that Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo had been coerced into testifying against herself and admitting her participation in the events, and that, however, in that operative paragraph Peru had been found guilty of violation of Article 8(2) of the Inter-American Convention. e. that even though the request for compensation for Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's relatives was not included in Report No. 20/94 of the Commission nor in its petition to the Court, the judgment ordered them to be compensated without specifying who they were. Peru stated that the Court ruled on this matter ultra petita, for which reason an interpretation is needed in order to exclude those relatives from the decision contained in operative paragraph 6) of the judgment on the ground that they were not included in Report No. 20/94 nor in the brief containing the application and f. that the Court accepted the testimony of Juan Alberto DelgadilloCastañeda, Guzmán Casas-Luis, Pedro Telmo Vega-Valle, Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides, María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, Víctor Alvarez-Pérez and Iván Arturo Bazán-Chacón, although, for a variety of reasons, those witnesses were not impartial. The State requested that, in the interpretation, the Court rule that those statements are invalid. 13. In its brief of January 16, 1998 the Commission pointed out that the request for interpretation did no meet the requirements set forth in Article 67 of the American Convention, since rather than seeking clarification of the meaning or scope of the judgement but, on the contrary, challenges the judgment, which is final and