representatives agreed with this definition provided by AMARC. 104. Similarly, a 2003 study by the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (hereinafter “UNESCO”) stated that the essential features of community radio can be summarized by the phrase “a radio service for the people, close to the people and for the people.”138. According to UNESCO, community radio is “a medium that gives a voice to the voiceless139. It “consist[s] of members of the community and its programming is based on community access and participation. It reflects the special interests and needs of its listeners whose first duty it is to serve.” 32. Therefore, the Court notes that there is no issue that merits clarification, inasmuch as the above cited paragraphs set the parameters to be taken into account regarding the definition of a community radio station. Consequently, insofar as there is no ambiguous or imprecise matter to clarify, the Court dismisses the State’s request for interpretation in this regard. D. Regarding operative paragraph seven D.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 33. The State requested interpretation of “the meaning and scope” of operative paragraph seven, as the functions discharged by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judges would be biased from the very beginning if they failed to investigate and understand the circumstances surrounding specific cases and any acts that could constitute crimes, which would violate the independence of judicial operators in view of the need to perform judicial review of the Convention. This, it added, is because judicial review of the Convention “is mainly performed by the judiciary in each specific case, depending on the facts, conduct of the individuals involved, duration, level of participation, and other considerations.” It further indicated that this would make it impossible to “conduct a criminal prosecution for acts related to the illegal use of radio frequencies, as it would be necessary to analyze the details to determine whether or not criminal prosecution is in order.” Moreover, it held that the operative paragraph “would violate the principle of judicial independence and impartiality” and would also entail “interference in the work” of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In order for the State to refrain from prosecuting individuals who operate community radio stations, it is “paramount” to have a “clear definition and the specific activities that these radio stations carry out” to avoid illegal use of the radio spectrum. 34. The representatives asked the Court to hold the request for interpretation as inadmissible, as the State was attempting to challenge or modify the judgment. They pointed out that the scope and meaning of the operative paragraph in question are clear and precise. They indicated that it is within the framework of the powers of the Court to order a State to adapt its domestic laws to the provisions of the Convention and that it is not the first time that this Court has ordered Guatemala to refrain from applying a legal provision until such time as the domestic legislation is amended to fit the parameters of the American Convention. As to judicial review of the Convention, they held that all the powers, organs and public authorities of the State must comply with the American Convention and the Court’s judgments of interpretation thereof. Consequently, they indicated that “the State’s response must be consistent with the judgment” as a whole and that the State may not invoke the provisions of its domestic law as justification for its failure to comply. Finally, they argued that the judiciary’s compliance with a judgment is part of the judicial duty to respect and protect the rule of law, and this is consistent with the ability to exercise judicial independence and impartiality. 9