6 not subject to appeal. The Court summarized the arguments adduced by the Commission in its comments on the request for interpretation as follows: a. that the Court, in the judgment on preliminary objections and in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the judgment, referred properly and clearly to the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; that the statement concerning the allegation of lack of motive for it is groundless and, in any event, could not be brought through a request for interpretation. b. that the Court did rule in the judgment that the scope of the declaration of the state of emergency governed by Article 27 of the Convention was not pertinent. It further declared that the State is refuting the Court's decision, rather than submitting any request for interpretation or clarification of the meaning or scope of the judgment; c. that the judgment is clear regarding the meaning and scope of the order for Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's release, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, since in accordance with the prinicple of restitutio in integrum, the victim's rights and freedoms enshrined in the American Convention and which the Court found to have been violated must be restored. It further stated that Peruvian domestic law provides for compliance with an order issued by an international organization through its jurisdictional organs, when Peru is subject to its jurisdiction. d. that there is no conventional or statutory provision that establishes that the request originating in a case before the Court must conform to the terms of the report referred to in Article 50. It further pointed out that the Court found that the principle of innocence embodied in Article 8(2) of the Convention had been violated and that it was not a question, as Peru claimed in its request for interpretation, of a denunciation of a generic violation of that article. e. that, there is no need to clarify the meaning or scope of the compensation ordered to be paid to the victim's next of kin, since a person's next of kin are those relatives designated by their own names for hereditary purposes, as the Court has already stated; and f. that, with regard to the witnesses, the Court acted in accordance with Article 48(3) of its Rules of Procedure and so indicated when it ruled on the allegations submitted by the State. It further stated that a reading of the judgment implies that the Court had attributed value to the statements when information provided by the witnesses was corroborated by other evidence produced in the case. IV INADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 14. According to Article 67 of the Convention transcribed above (supra, para. 8), the judgments of this Court are final and not subject to appeal, but may be interpreted at the requested of any of the parties when there is disagreement on the meaning and scope of the decision.