-2I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 1. On November 27, 2013, the Inter-American Court issued the judgment, which was notified to the parties and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) on December 23 of the same year. 2. On March 17, 2014, the representative submitted a request for interpretation in relation to two aspects of the judgment: (i) the source of evidence for the reference to “Las Esmeraldas” street in paragraph 87 of the judgment, which he considered a material error, and “its implication in the sense of the analysis that flows into paragraph 147 of the judgment,” as well as (ii) what would be the legal consequences, in accordance with Article 63 of the Convention, of the violation of the rights of the victim as provided in paragraph 227 of the judgment. 3. On March 21, 2014, the State submitted a request for interpretation due to having “uncertainties about the meaning or scope of the judgment, with considerations that affect its operative section.” In particular, the State requested that the Court: (i) clarify whether the facts of paragraphs 357 to 368 must be classified as torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, or whether said legal classification must be determined in the investigation of the national jurisdictional bodies in compliance with the reparations measure that was ordered by the Court; (ii) specify "the criteria and methodology used to determine the amounts established as expenses and costs" in paragraph 422 of the judgment, and (iii) amend the position of Mr. Federico Javier Llaque Moya2 to “lawyer of the Specialized Prosecutor for Crimes of Terrorism.” 4. On March 25, 2014, as provided in Article 68.2 of the rules of the Court, and following instructions from the Court's President, the Secretariat sent on the abovementioned requests for interpretation to the representative, the State, and the Commission, granting them a term up to April 25, 2014, to present the written allegations that they deemed fit. 5. On April 25, 2014, the representative, the Commission and the State presented their written arguments regarding the aforementioned requests for interpretation. II COMPETENCE 6. Article 67 of the Convention provides: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 7. Pursuant to the cited article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its rulings. In order to examine the requests for interpretation and decide as so In its request for interpretation, the State referred to this deponent for information purposes as Javier Llaque Moya. For the purposes of this judgment, he will be identified as Federico Javier Llaque Moya, as he was identified in the judgment, which is also how Mr. Llaque Moya identifies himself in his resume. 2