paragraph in light of the rest rather than interpreting paragraphs in isolation.7 To this end, the Court cautions that there is no issue that requires interpretation inasmuch as, according to paragraph 195 to 196 of the judgment, the Court indicated that: 195. It is worth recalling that in 2002 Guatemala signed Governmental Agreement 316-2002, whereby the State created a procedure to facilitate access to AM frequencies for some civil society organizations to operate non-profit, non-political and non-religious radio stations. However, in addition to the fact that only a few such frequencies have been allocated under a mechanism that does not appear to offer sufficient legal certainty, one of the declarants at the public hearing stated that “nobody wanted” those frequencies, that “they are not useful”, and that some broadcasting equipment can no longer be connected to those frequencies. He added that few people listen to the frequencies granted, their quality is poor and their operating cost is very high. Thus, the Court considers that Governmental Agreement 316-2002 cannot be considered as a legitimate or adequate instrument to promote a plural, diverse and inclusive regulation of radio broadcasting. 196. Consequently, the Court considers that the State must, within a reasonable period of time, adapt its domestic regulations in order to: (i) recognize community radio stations as differentiated means of communication, particularly indigenous community radio stations; (ii) regulate their operation, establishing a simple procedure for obtaining licenses, and (iii) reserve an adequate and sufficient portion of the radio spectrum for indigenous community radio stations. 25. This Court deems that the transcribed passages are clear and specific as to the location of the radio frequencies. The text even states that amplitude modulation was not considered useful since its quality was poor and the operating cost was very high. The Court therefore dismisses this request for interpretation. C. Regarding operative paragraph six C.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 26. The State requested the Court to interpret the scope of operative paragraph six of the decision in relation to two aspects. First, it asks the Court to allow for the fact that the reasonable period of time referred to in the operative paragraph must take into account: (i) “the time needed to set up a legal or regulatory platform to appropriately and adequately regulate the consultation processes with indigenous communities”; (ii) “the time needed to carry out said consultation processes”, and (iii) “the time it takes to adapt domestic regulations in order to recognize community radio stations as a distinct communications medium”. Second, it asks the Court to state “in specific terms”: (i) the definition of a community radio; (ii) what activities a radio station must carry out in order to be considered a community radio station, and (iii) what activities community radio stations should not carry out since “it would distort their very nature.” To this end, it argued that the features of community radios mentioned by the Court are not enough for the State to determine, in specific terms, what qualifies as a community radio station, what function it serves, and when a radio station should not fall into such a category. It further it indicated that “in view of this lack of a definition or its broad characterization, people who operate without a legal license may claim to be community radio stations to escape from legal actions on the part of the State.” Moreover, the State observed that there is no specific regulation in Guatemala governing consultation processes with indigenous communities. 27. The representatives noted that the Court’s judgment had set guidelines for defining a community radio station, citing the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters and the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture, “which emphasize a broad Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al v. Perú. 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 Casa Nina v. Perú. Interpretation of Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 33. 7 7