I REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On November 24, 2020, the Inter-American Court issued a judgment on this case, of which the parties and the Inter-American Commission on Human rights (hereinafter also “the Commission”) were notified on December 18 of the same year. 2. On March 12, 2021, the victim’s representative1 submitted a request for interpretation of the scope of paragraph 132 of the judgment with respect to the restitution measure ordered, as well as of paragraph 144 regarding the amount set as compensation for pecuniary damage for lost income. 3. On March 18, 2021, the State submitted a request for interpretation of paragraphs 136 to 139, as well as the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment, regarding the scope of the legal modifications ordered as a guarantee of non-repetition, and of paragraph 158, in conjunction with the eighth operative paragraph, regarding the reimbursement of “reasonable expenditures” during the compliance monitoring phase. 4. On March 23, 2021, pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Court’s Secretariat sent the aforementioned requests for interpretation to the parties and the Commission and gave them until April 26, 2021, to present in writing any observations they considered relevant. On April 26, 2021, the Commission and the State submitted their respective observations. The representative did not submit observations on the State’s request for interpretation. II JURISDICTION 5. Article 67 of the American Convention establishes that: The 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 the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 6. Pursuant to the cited article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its judgments. In order to examine the request for interpretation and to decide in respect of this matter, the Court must, whenever possible, be composed of the same judges who delivered the corresponding judgment, in accordance with Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation has been requested. 2 III ADMISSIBILITY Attorney Yessenia Mercedes Casa Salinas was designated the representative in the proceedings before the Court. 2 Due to the exceptional circumstances resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and adopted during the Court’s 143rd regular session, which was held virtually using technological resources as established in the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 1 2

Select target paragraph3