the loss of a loved one. Owing to the nature of this violation, in the practice, this signifies that the deceased victims’ heirs (who in most cases are the next of kin) are the beneficiaries of the compensation corresponding to the deceased victim, while the next of kin who are declared to be victims in the judgment, because of the damage to their mental and moral integrity due to the loss of a loved one, are the beneficiaries of a distinct compensation amount related to this additional damage.” The Commission added that, “in paragraphs 334 to 338 of the Judgment, especially in the assessment of the aspects covered by the reparations granted at the domestic level and the consequent determination of who and for what concepts may have recourse to the mechanism established in [paragraph] 337 of the Judgment, these elements are not clearly distinguished from the pecuniary reparations based on the right to life in light of the consistent case law of the Inter-American Court.�� Thus, “and given that on previous occasions the Court has taken a different approach in similar situations […],” the Commission considered that the request for interpretation filed by the representatives was admissible. 16. The State indicated that the request was inadmissible because “the intention was to contest the ruling issued by the Court and […] to expand its scope as regards the measures of compensation granted and the persons who would benefit from them.” It added that such matters “are outside the regulatory sphere of Article 67 of the American Convention, because they would lead to the modification of the previously delivered judgment.” Furthermore, it indicated that the representatives were not referring to a problem of interpretation but, to the contrary, were merely contesting substantial matters relating to the Judgment. Lastly, the State considered that the compensation mechanism of paragraph 337 of the Judgment “was established expressly by the Court for the injured victims and their next of kin who, being identified as injured party during these proceedings, had not exhausted the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, and for five family members of two deceased victims who were recognized as injured party and who had not received reparation at the domestic level. Consequently, the mechanism [could] not be extended to the “heirs” of the 16 deceased victims who, in the Court’s understanding, had already received satisfactory compensation under domestic law.” Considerations of the Court 17. The Court recalls that the Judgment considered the following with regard to the reparations granted at the domestic level in relation to the death of the persons who were declared victims of the violation of the right to life: “334. […] the Court notes that the next of kin of those who died in Santo Domingo received reparation under the Colombian contentious-administrative proceeding […]. Thus, 107 relatives of 16 of the 17 presumed victims who were killed have received compensation under the contentious-administrative jurisdiction.6 These next of kin 6 Cf. Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Court of Arauca, Mario Galvis Gelvez et al., case file No. 81-001-23-2000-348, May 20, 2004 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10180 to 10274), the Conciliation Agreement, Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., proceedings No. 28259, November 8, 2007 (evidence file, tome 3, folios 1044 and 1045), and the approval of the Conciliation Agreement, Judgment of the Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-0348-01, December 13, 2007(evidence file, tome 2, folios 751-806). In this judgment, the conciliation was approved between the Nation and 19 of the 23 joint litigators, it was declared that the proceedings were terminated with regard to them, and the agreement was not approved with regard to the remaining four, ordering that the proceedings should continue in their regard. Subsequently, in a judgment of November 19, 2008, the Nation-Ministry of Defense was declared materially responsible for the damage caused to the four remaining co-litigants. See Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-0348-01, November 19, 2008 (evidence file, tome 3, folios 1047-1127). 5