occasions the victim or his representative can demand reimbursement” of said expenses. 36. The Commission did not present observations on the State’s specific request for interpretation. The representative did not present observations on the State’s argument either. D.2. Considerations of the Court 37. In paragraph 158 of the judgment, the Court declared: [...] It should be added that, at the stage of monitoring compliance with this judgment, the Court may establish that the State reimburse the victim or his representative for any reasonable expenses they incur at that procedural stage. 38. Regarding this request, the Court considers the above text clear and precise, as it follows that the potential reimbursement will be for expenses necessarily related to the monitoring of compliance with the judgment.9 Therefore, the specific issue the State noted does not correspond to the eighth operative paragraph of the judgment, concerning compensation set as a measure of reparation for documented violations. 10 39. Due to the peculiarities of each case, both the amount of the reimbursement referenced in paragraph 158 and the time frame for requesting it are uncertain while the case is in the stage of monitoring compliance with the judgment. Thus, reimbursement of expenses will be established by the Court itself, which will determine which of the claimed outlays are reasonable, depending on their nature, their amount, and, ultimately, the arguments made by the parties (whose right of defense will not be affected) in each case. 40. Ultimately, the Court does not see the request presented as seeking clarification of some point in the judgment that lacks clarity or precision. Rather, the claim seems intended to produce in advance restrictions on the reimbursement of expenses that the victim or his representative might at some point request during the compliance monitoring stage. This end, however, cannot be achieved through the interpretation of a judgment. Thus, the State’s request is inadmissible. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 41. Therefore, THE COURT Cf. Case of Duque v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2016. Series C No. 322, paras. 15 and 16, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 367, paras. 46 and 47. 10 The eighth operative paragraph of the judgment establishes: The State shall pay the amounts established in paragraphs 132, 144, 153 and 158 of this judgment as compensation due to the unfeasibility of reinstating the victim in the post that he occupied, as well as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and to reimburse costs and expenses, pursuant to paragraphs 163 to 168 of this judgment. 9 9