35. The Commission recalled that paragraphs 201 and 202, together with paragraphs 157 to 172 of the judgment explain the basis for the measures established in operative paragraph seven. D.2. Considerations of the Court 36. Operative paragraph seven of the judgment reads: 7. The State shall immediately refrain from criminally prosecuting the individuals who operate indigenous community radio stations, conducting raids on said radio stations or seizing their broadcasting equipment, until it has ensured effective legal mechanisms to allow access by indigenous communities of Guatemala to the radio spectrum and allocated the corresponding frequencies, pursuant to paragraph 202 of [the] judgment. 37. Moreover, the Court notes draws attention to its findings in paragraphs 201 and 202 of the judgment: 201. The Court recalls that in paragraphs 157 to 172 of this judgment, it declared the violation of the right to freedom of expression of the Maya Kaqchikel indigenous peoples of Sumpango and the Maya Achí of San Miguel Chicaj, recognized in Article 13(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, having concluded that Guatemala unlawfully restricted the freedom of expression of those communities by raiding their community radio stations, seizing their equipment and criminally prosecuting their operators. This is because it was the State itself that, by failing to legally recognize community radio stations and not creating specific mechanisms to guarantee indigenous people effective access to the radio spectrum, indirectly generated the exclusion of these peoples, who were forced to operate their community radio stations without authorization because they could not compete on equal terms for the acquisition of frequencies. 202. By virtue of the foregoing, this Court deems it pertinent to order the State to immediately refrain from prosecuting individuals who operate indigenous community radio stations for the crime of theft, and to suspend measures such as the raids and seizure of the broadcasting equipment of these stations, at least until it has effectively ensured legal mechanisms to allow Guatemala’s indigenous communities to have access to the radio spectrum and allocated the corresponding frequencies, under the terms of the reservation of frequencies ordered previously (supra para. 196). 38. In addition, the Court recalls that, in paragraphs 169 to 170 of the judgment, it also determined that “the criminal prosecution of the persons who operated the indigenous community radio stations, the raids on Radio Ixchel and Radio “La Voz del Pueblo” and the confiscation of their broadcasting equipment, are inappropriate and unnecessary. This is because the State could have used other less injurious means than those provided for in criminal law [...].” Moreover, the Court considered that “the criminal prosecution in question was disproportionate, since it excessively affected the freedom of expression and the right to participate in cultural life of the Maya Kaqchikel indigenous peoples of Sumpango and the Maya Achí of San Miguel Chicaj.” 39. In view of the foregoing, this Court would note that a full reading of the decision reveals that the State must refrain from prosecuting individuals who operate community radio stations. 40. The State has also argued that it cannot discontinue criminal prosecutions already underway against individuals who operate community radio stations. The Court would reiterate its stance against using a request for interpretation to re-argue the same questions of fact and law already raised at the proper point in the proceedings and then adjudicated by 10