33. With respect to the request of Peru, this Court recalls that the parties must consider the judgment as a whole and each paragraph in light of the rest rather than interpreting paragraphs in isolation.7 In this regard, the Court notes that the above passages, consistent with paragraphs 81 and 83 of the same judgment (expressly cited in paragraph 138)8, make clear the meaning and scope of the legal modifications ordered as a guarantee of non-repetition. Thus, it should be noted that the State’s two main questions in this respect can be answered precisely and fully through a joint reading of the abovementioned paragraphs. 34. Regarding the request for interpretation of paragraph 139 of the judgment specifically, the State noted a possible contradiction which, it stated, had been revealed in the vote issued by one of the Court’s judges under Article 65(2) of the Rules of Procedure. In this regard, the Court notes that there is no issue requiring clarification, as the referenced paragraph expressly notes that “regardless of the legal reforms the State” adopts, it is “essential that the authorities with competence to decide,” in exercising their conventionality review, “adapt their interpretation of the law to the principles established in this judgment.” Therefore, the Court rejects the State’s request. D. The State's request for interpretation regarding the reimbursement of expenses in the compliance monitoring stage of the judgment D.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 35. The State requested clarification of paragraph 158 of the judgment “in relation” to the eighth operative paragraph. It stated that said paragraph, which indicated that the reimbursement of “reasonable expenses” is feasible in the compliance monitoring stage of the judgment, is “vague and open-ended, making it impossible to predict the length of the monitoring stage or the meaning of ‘reasonable expenses.’” It requested clarification on the meaning of that concept. It added, “Neither is it clear on how many Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2017. Series C No. 335, para. 26, and Case of Roche Azaña et al. v. Nicaragua. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 18, 2020. Series C No. 418, para. 19. 8 In paragraphs 81 and 83 of the judgment, the Court considered the following: 81. The Court reiterates that it does not have competence to define the best institutional framework for ensuring the independence and objectivity of prosecutors. However, it notes that States are bound to ensure that provisional prosecutors are independent and objective, and therefore should grant them some sort of stability and permanence in office, because the fact that they are appointed provisionally does not mean that they can be removed from office in a discretionary or arbitrary manner. The Court notes that the provisional nature of the appointment should not modify in any way the safeguards instituted to guarantee the reliable performance of their functions and to benefit the litigants themselves. In any case, such provisional appointments should not be prolonged indefinitely and should be subject to a resolutive condition, such as the extinction of the case that resulted in the temporary absence or separation of the incumbent, or the expiry of a predetermined period and the holding and conclusion of a public competitive selection procedure whereby permanent replacements are selected. Provisional appoints should be exceptional, rather than the rule. In addition (infra paras. 88 and 89), the decision that terminates the appointment of provisional prosecutors should be duly reasoned, to ensure the rights to due process and judicial protection. 83. In conclusion, the Court considers that the removal of a provisional prosecutor from office should be the result of legally defined caused, namely: (i) the occurrence of the resolutive condition to which the designation or appointment was subject, or the conclusion of a predetermined period of time for holding and concluding a public competitive selection procedure in order to appoint or designate the permanent replacement of the provisional prosecutor, or (ii) serious disciplinary offenses or proven incompetence, in which case it is necessary to conduct a procedures that complies with the due guarantees and that ensures the objectivity and impartiality of the decision. 7 8