4 unanimously, 6. That the State of Peru is obliged to pay fair compensation to the victim and her next of kin and to reimburse them for any expenses they may have incurred in their representations before the Peruvian authorities in connection with this process, for which purpose the corresponding proceeding remains open. Judge Montiel-Argüello informed the Court of his Dissenting Opinion, and Judge Cançado Trindade and Judge Jackman of their Joint Concurring Opinion, both of which are attached to this judgment. 12. The Court summarizes the arguments and requests submitted by the State in its request for interpretation as follows: a. that the operative part of the judgment does not contain any pronouncement on the exhaustion of domestic remedies, since only a brief and incomplete mention is made on the subject in paragraphs 47 and 48, nor did the Court, in the judgment on preliminary objections rendered in this case, put forward any basis for its rejection of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Peru submitted other arguments connected with above-mentioned preliminary objection and declared the entire proceeding before the Commission and the Court to be null and void. For these reasons, it requested the Court to deliver a specific ruling on the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; b. that Article 7 of the Convention had not been violated to the detriment of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo and that the judgment did not specify which of the seven subparagraphs of that article had been violated; that in the judgment the Court admitted that Supreme Decree 006-93-DE/CCFFAA of January 19, 1993, extending the state of emergency in the Province of Lima and in the Constitutional Province of Callao was in force on February 6, 1993, the date on which Ms. Loayza-Tamayo was arrested and that her detention was effected in accordance with the requirements of Article 27 of the Convention and of the Constitution and laws of Peru. The State further stated that the Court did not study the validity of the declaration of the state of emergency, within the requirements of the aforementioned Article 27; c. that Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was serving a 20-year prison sentence; that in this case, under Peruvian legislation, the fulfillment of that sentence could only be interrupted when it had been served or by the granting of a pardon; that, for this reason, the Court's order to release Ms. Loayza-Tamayo was out of order and illegal; that the Court's order was complied with even thought the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima, by decision of October 14, 1997, expressed its disagreement with the tenor and scope of the judgment of the Inter-American Court, with particular regard to operative paragraphs four and five, inasmuch as, in its view, the Peruvian jurisdictional organs did not violate Article 8(4) of the Convention which concerns the principle of res judicata or double jeopardy. Nor did the judgment specify whether the decision to order the release was a dismissal of the case, a supranational judicial pardon, or a supranational review. It added that, in a note of May 20, 1995, the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President") pointed out, after consultation of the Permanent Commission, that the Court was not empowered to, nor should it, intervene directly in the taking of