Accordingly, in light of the violations declared in this judgment, the State must pay Julio Casa Nina compensation, which this Court establishes, in equity, as US$30,000.00 (thirty thousand United States dollars). 18. The above shows that the issue the representative refers to in her request for interpretation was analyzed and decided at the appropriate time in the judgment. The Court recalls that, consistent with the facts of the present case, Julio Casa Nina held the office of Provisional Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of the Judicial District of Ayacucho, in the office of the Second Provincial Criminal Prosecutor of Huamanga, when his appointment was terminated. Therefore, the Court took into consideration the provisional nature of said position when it declined to grant the request for reinstatement because, as expressly indicated in the above paragraph, according to the information provided in the proceedings, his former position had been held by someone else as the incumbent since February 9, 2005. Moreover, it was in accordance with the above that the compensation for lost income was calculated precisely from the day the victim's provisional appointment was terminated (January 21, 2003) to the day the new incumbent was appointed (February 9, 2005) (paragraph 144 of the judgment). 19. It follows, then, that because the victim's reinstatement to the position as reparation for the stated violations, including the right to job stability, was not feasible, compensation was ordered as a restitution measure for the victim. 20. Therefore, the Court determines that the issue was decided in the judgment, and it is not appropriate to seek to change the ordered measure of reparation by means of a request for interpretation. B. The representative's request for interpretation regarding the amount set as compensation for pecuniary damage for lost income B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 21. The Representative requested clarification of paragraph 144 of the judgment, referring to the compensation ordered for pecuniary damage. She raised two questions in her request: a) whether the amount the State owes the victim includes pension entitlements for the affected years, and b) whether the employment rights, “such as AFP (Pension Fund Administrators), ONP (Office of Pension Normalization), and others, the victim is legally entitled to,” should be requested under national law. In this regard, she stated that according to Inter-American case law, the right to a pension is autonomous, so it is necessary to clarify whether that right “should [be] claim[ed] before domestic courts or should be addressed in the [...] judgment.” 22. The State indicated that the Court granted monetary compensation that “includes all the assets the victim could have received” during the period of time used in calculating the lost income. It added that the representative’s proposal “is in fact a request to modify the judgment.” It asked that the representative’s request be rejected. 23. The Commission stated that the Court should assess the representative’s request “in light of” applicable law and the opinions set in the case law regarding the interpretation of judgments. 5