-7With regard to interpretation of the scope and meaning of these parts of the judgment, the Victims respectfully request that the Court clarify the following two issues: a) The scope, meaning and content of the ‘informed consent’ requirement contained in paragraph 210, and in particular: (i) that the Court explain the broad principles governing the substantive and procedural requirements that apply to obtaining the “informed consent of the Moiwana community, the other Cottica N’djuka villages and the neighboring indigenous communities;” and (ii) that the Court clarify that informed consent is required in relation to both the “legislative, administrative and other measures” the State must adopt to ensure the property rights of the Moiwana community “in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled,” as well as to the actual delimitation, demarcation and titling carried out pursuant to those measures once adopted. b) The scope and meaning of the term ‘property rights’ in paragraph 209 and 233 in order to clarify that: (i) this term encompasses collective ownership rights; the area(s) to which these rights correspond shall be delimited, demarcated and titled in accordance with the community’s customary laws, values, usage and mores; and, given the finding in paragraph 86(5) of the judgment, that such ownership rights must be recognized and guaranteed in law and protected in fact; and, (ii) the term ‘traditional territories’ does not exclusively refer to the former village site as it existed prior to 29 November 1986, but also encompasses those areas which, according to N’djuka customary law, the community and its members may by right own and control or otherwise occupy and use. V ADMISSIBILITY 9. The Court will now proceed to determine if the terms of the request for interpretation comply with the applicable requirements. 10. Article 67 of the Convention provides: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as 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. 11. Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure provides: 1. The request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. 2. The Secretary shall transmit the request for interpretation to the parties to the case and shall invite them to submit any written comments they deem relevant, within the time limit established by the President.