-37. The State shall build a memorial in a suitable public location, in the terms of paragraph 218 of this judgment. 8. The State shall pay the compensation ordered in paragraph 187 of the instant judgment to the Moiwana community members for material damages, in the terms of paragraphs 178 – 181 and 225 – 231 of this judgment. 9. The State shall pay the compensation ordered in paragraph 196 of the instant judgment to the Moiwana community members for moral damages, in the terms of paragraphs 178 – 181 and 225 – 231 of this judgment. 10. The State shall pay the compensation ordered in paragraph 223 of the instant judgment for costs, in the terms of paragraphs 223 – 231 of this judgment. 11. The Court will monitor compliance with this judgment and will close this case once the State has fully implemented all of the provisions. Within one year of the date of notification of this judgment, the State shall furnish the Court with a report on the measures taken in compliance therewith, in the terms of paragraph 232 of said judgment. 2. The judgment was notified representatives on July 14, 2005. to the State, the Commission and the II JURISDICTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE TRIBUNAL 3. Article 67 of the Convention provides that: [t]he 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 the notification of the judgment. According to the foregoing Article, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its own judgments. If possible, when examining a request for interpretation of a judgment, the Court should be composed of the same members who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought (Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). In this case, the Court is composed of the same members that delivered the judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits, and reparations, the interpretation of which has been requested by the State (supra footnote 1). III THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 4. On October 4, 2005, the State of Suriname submitted a request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits, and reparations in the Case of the Moiwana Community, as contemplated in Article 67 of the Convention and Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 5. In the request for interpretation, the State made, inter alia, the following comments: