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