-6“the President”), the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) transmitted a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) and to the representatives of the victims and their family members (hereinafter “the representatives”). In the same communication, the Secretariat informed the Commission and the representatives that they would be granted a period of 30 days in which to submit any written comments they deemed relevant. In addition, the Secretariat delivered a communication to the State, in which it reminded the State that, according to Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[the] request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment.” 7. On November 9, 2005 the Commission submitted its written comments upon the request for interpretation, in which it stated, inter alia: Rather than seeking an interpretation of the scope and meaning of the Court’s sentence, the request presented by the State of Suriname attempts to appeal aspects of the sentence which the State finds unfavorable. […] The State has cited no ambiguity or lack of clarity in the text of the judgment. […] The request for review is based on arguments concerning admissibility, merits and reparations with respect to which all parties were accorded a full procedural opportunity to present their positions […] [T]here is no legal basis for the State to re-litigate these points subsequent to the issuance of the Court’s judgment. Requests for interpretation, which have the purpose of appealing a judgment, such as that presented by the State of Suriname, must […] be deemed inadmissible. 8. On November 10, 2005 the representatives submitted their written comments upon the request, in which they stated, inter alia: A number of Suriname’s Specific Requests merely reiterate its preliminary objections […] These preliminary objections were dismissed by the Court in its judgment and are extemporaneous and inappropriate subject matter for a request for interpretation. […] Suriname is not asserting that the terms of the operative parts or the associated considerations lack clarity or are imprecise and, therefore, that it requires interpretation of the scope or meaning of those parts. Rather, Suriname is contesting or otherwise expressing its disagreement with parts of the judgment per se or with issues extraneous to the judgment. Additionally, each Specific Request is preceded by expositions on issues of dubious relevance and is stated in vague terms that are not amenable to precise responses. [E]ach of the Specific Requests submitted by Suriname is inadmissible on multiple grounds, and, consequently, a pronouncement by the Court should not be required in relation to any substantive issues they may raise. In addition to their observations regarding the State’s request, the representatives also submitted the following request to the Court: [C]onsidering the nature of Suriname’s reaction – as evidenced by its statements in the Request – to the Court’s ruling on the Moiwana community’s communal property rights, we believe that further elucidation of the scope and meaning of Suriname’s obligations with respect to the Court’s ruling on this issue is both important and necessary, particularly as it may relate to assisting the State and the Victims to understand and implement the ordered measures. […]