2 I INTRODUCTION TO THE APPLICATION 1. On December 19, 1997, Peru submitted, in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, a request for interpretation of the aforementioned judgment. 2. By note of December 22, 1997, the President granted the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "the Inter-American Commission") until January 27, 1998 to present its arguments in connection with the request for interpretation. 3. On January 16, 1998 the Commission submitted a brief containing its comments on the request for interpretation, in which it asked the Court to declare it out of order and rejected. 4. On February 23, 1998 the State dispatched a brief in which it referred to the Inter-American Commission's comments on the request for interpretation. It also repeated some of the points contained therein. 5. On March 3, 1998 the Commission submitted a note containing comments on the State's brief, dated February 9, 1998, in which it again said that it did not express its opinion on many of the points raised by the State because it deemed it unnecessary in view of their groundlessness ... [and that] the Commission has no "obligation" to pronounce on the specific point referred to in the aforementioned brief, especially since the request for interpretation was addressed to the Honourable Court and not to the Commission. It also requested that the brief in question not be added to the file, on the ground of its inadmissibility since it does not comply with the Rules of Procedure. II COMPOSITION AND COMPETENCE 6. For this occasion the Court is composed of the judges who delivered the judgment of September 17, 1997, for which the interpretation is being sought by Peru. 7. This composition is in keeping with Article 58(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that [w]hen considering a request for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought [...] 8. The Court is competent to settle the present request for an interpretation inasmuch as Article 67 of the Convention provides 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 the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.

Select target paragraph3