21. The State, first of all, highlighted that the General Law on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, Disappearances Committed by Private Parties and the National Search System of November 17, 2017, created the National Registry of Missing and Not Located Persons. In this regard, the State indicated that the obligation to create a registry of Missing Persons is an obligation established in said law, that continues to be strengthened in order to continue its proper and effective operation. Thus, the State established that, regardless of the term used by the Court in operative paragraph 16, the State will comply with the judgment issued in this case. 22. For its part, the Commission deemed it necessary to clarify the scope of operative paragraph 16, specifically whether the criteria in paragraph 325 are mandatory for the State. B.2. Considerations of the Court 23. Based on what was requested by the representatives, as well as the questions posed, the Court notes that three different aspects were raised: a) the scope of the term “recommends”, b) the criteria recommended in paragraph 325, and c ) the request that a deadline be set for the State to carry out an analysis of the suitability of the measures to create the aforementioned registry. 24. In relation to the first two aspects, the Court clarifies that what is established in paragraph 325 of the judgment are criteria that the State may analyze and even incorporate, if it so determines, in order to comply with the obligation contained in operative paragraph 16 to create a “single and updated [registry] of disappeared persons which generates statistical data that allows cases of “forced disappearances” to be determined clearly”. Thus, the reparation measure ordered is to create this registry, and not necessarily to incorporate the criteria recommended by this Court in paragraph 325. 25. Regarding the last aspect, the Court considers it important to recall that this Court’s interpretation function must be limited to clarifying the meaning or scope of some point of the judgment. Thus, it would not be appropriate to use said power to broaden the meaning of the reparation measures ordered or include requests that were not made at the appropriate procedural moment. Therefore, through this function, the scope of a reparation measure ordered in a timely manner cannot be broadened. 12 26. Based on the foregoing, this Court admits the request for interpretation regarding the first two questions made by the representatives, and rejects the request made in the third question because it is contrary to the purpose of the interpretive power of this Court, established in articles 67 of the Convention and 31 of the Rules of Procedure. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 27. Therefore, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 365, para. 17. 12 6