this Court,9 or to seek for the Court to re-assess matters that have already been decided in the judgment.10 Therefore, the Court notes that, under the guise of a request for interpretation, the State would have the Court reconsider its analysis regarding the operative paragraph in question. This is inadmissible under Article 67 of the American Convention. Consequently, the Court denies the request presented by the State. E. Regarding operative paragraph eight E.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 41. The State requested the Court to determine the scope and meaning of operative paragraph eight. It claimed that “the judgment refers to convictions handed down against members of indigenous communities, without defining the scope of the term ‘indigenous community.’" It further argued that it is not possible to assume that all individuals who have been convicted for operating a radio station without a license and who are part of an indigenous community are therefore engaged in community radio. It recalled the “need for the Court to provide a definition and to clarify the activities carried out by a community radio, in order to be able to determine to whom the present provision applies.” Moreover, it requested that the scope and meaning of operative paragraph eight be interpreted to address whether, “by applying this provision, the principles of independence and impartiality” of the judicial operators and the Public Prosecutor’s Office would be violated. 42. The representatives reiterated their observations submitted in relation to the request for interpretation of operative paragraph seven; and they particularly indicated that the judgment “is binding on all the public bodies and branches of state, including judges and judicial operators.” 43. The Commission reiterated its observations regarding operative paragraph seven and emphasized that the basis for said operative paragraph can be understood by making a thorough analysis of paragraphs 201 and 202 and 157 to 172 of the judgment. E.2. Considerations of the Court 44. Operative paragraph eight of the judgment reads: 8. The State shall annul the convictions handed down against members of indigenous communities for using the radio spectrum, and any related consequences, pursuant to paragraph 203 of [the] judgment. 45. In the first place, the Court considers it is important to clarify that operative paragraph eight of the judgment must be interpreted in accordance with the specificities of the case, characteristic of community radios, as indicated in paragraph 194 of the judgment.11 To this Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra, para. 15, and Case of Casa Nina v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 9 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra, para. 30, and Case of Casa Nina v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 10 11 Paragraph 194 of the judgment establishes: In addition, as noted in Chapter VII of this judgment, the LGT, in practice, does not make provision for community radio stations and Guatemala does not have any other regulations governing their operation, which the Court considers fundamental to ensure that community radio stations can effectively operate. Furthermore, taking into account that indigenous peoples represent approximately half of the population of Guatemala; that most of them 11