- 14 many of the witnesses had stated that they were unable to read the records made of the searches, and that “the victim or the family members were required to sign [them].” 147. Despite the above, the Court underscores that, in her statement, J.’s mother did not deny that she had authorized this search. Also, it should be recalled that the statement of the presumed victim cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather in the context of all the evidence in the proceeding. Likewise, regarding the statement by J.’s mother, this Court finds that, since she is a member of the presumed victim’s family and has a direct interest in this case, her testimony cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather in the context of the evidence in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court finds that it does not have sufficient evidence to disprove the fact that, according to the respective search record, J.’s mother authorized the entry into her home of the police agents and, therefore, concludes that the search of the home of Ms. J. on Casimiro Negrón Street did not violate Article 11(2) of the Convention. 41. As can be deduced from the cited paragraphs, the material error pointed out by the representative in no way affects the provisions of the Court in its judgment. This Court expressly indicated that “since she is a member of the presumed victim’s family and has a direct interest in this case, her testimony cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather in the context of the evidence in the proceedings.” Regardless of whether Ms. J.'s mother and her sister were taken directly to the building on Casimiro Negrón Street, where, according to her statement, everything was already in a mess when they arrived, and not to the building on Las Esmeraldas, the fact that Ms. J.'s mother signed the search report where it is established that she gave her authorization, coupled with the impossibility of assessing her statements in isolation, led the Court to conclude that “it d[id] not have sufficient evidence” to declare a violation of Article 11 of the Convention, by virtue of said search. This Court considers that, under the guise of a request for interpretation, the representative seeks a modification of that ordered by the Court in paragraph 147 of the judgment, which would imply an assessment of matters of fact and law that were already raised at the procedural opportunity and on which this Court has already made a decision. Since there is no possibility for the ruling to be modified, in accordance with Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68 of its Rules of Procedure, the representative's request is inadmissible. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 42. Therefore, THE COURT in accordance with article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and articles 31(3), 68, and 76 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: Unanimously,