Therefore, it requested “a more specific elaboration of the scope” of the seventh operative paragraph, in conjunction with paragraph 139. 30. The Commission noted that the judgment allows for the seventh operative paragraph to be understood. It added that the concept of conventionality review included in paragraph 139 “means that regardless of the reforms, the legal authorities must perform [that] review [...] through interpretations consistent with the American Convention regarding stability guarantees for prosecutors.” The representative did not submit observations on the State’s request for interpretation. C.2. Considerations of the Court 31. In deciding on the requested guarantees of non-repetition in paragraphs 136 to 139 of the judgment, the Court stated the following: 136. The Court, based on the arguments and evidence provided by the State, notes that, currently, the norms that regulate the appointment to office, tenure and termination of the functions of provisional prosecutors is contained in the “Internal regulations for the appointment, evaluation and tenure of provisional prosecutors,” adopted by Resolution of the Prosecutor General No. 4330-2014MP-FN of October 15, 2014. These regulations continue to condition the appointment of provisional prosecutors and also their termination to the concept of the “needs for the service,” among other aspects, without establishing the guarantee of stability of these officials, because it does not circumscribe their removal from office to the established causes in order to safeguard their independence (supra para. 83). Indeed, article 15 of the said regulations establishes: The permanence of the provisional prosecutors depends on: 15.1. Probity and aptitude in performance. 15.2. The need for the service. 15.3. Availability of a budget. 15.4. Conversion, relocation, modification or reform of the office of the prosecutors. 137. It should also be indicated that the reigning criteria, held by both administrative and jurisdictional authorities concerning the tenure of provisional prosecutors continues to be based on the power of the appointing authority to decide discretionally, in each case, on the pertinence of terminating the appointment, thereby disregarding the guarantee of stability of those officials. 138. Consequently, the Court determines that the Peruvian State, within a reasonable time, must adapt its domestic laws as outlined in paragraphs 81 and 83 of this judgment. 139. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the different State authorities, including judges and organs involved in the administration of justice, are obliged to exercise ex officio a control of conventionality between domestic law and the American Convention, evidently within their respective terms of reference and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the domestic authorities should take into account not only the treaty but also how it has been interpreted by the Inter-American Court, the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention. Therefore, regardless of the legal reforms that the State must adopt, it is essential that the authorities with competence to decide on the appointment and removal of prosecutors, and also the courts of justice, adapt their interpretation of the law to the principles established in this judgment. 32. On the basis of the above considerations, the Court established the following in the seventh operative paragraph: The State shall adapt its domestic laws in order to ensure job stability to provisional prosecutors, pursuant to paragraphs 136 to 139 of this judgment. 7