-9In fact, Suriname’s request explicitly states its view that the faculty of requesting an interpretation gives “parties that disagree with the judgment the opportunity to petition your […] Court.” This view is not substantiated by the Convention, by the Court’s Rules of Procedure, or by its case law. For the reasons stated above, the State’s request for interpretation should be dismissed for failing to meet the requirements of Article 67 of the Convention, and of Articles 59 and 29.3 of the Rules of Procedure. 17. 18. With regard to the request submitted by the representatives (supra paragraph 8), the Court points out that the opportunity to submit written comments on one party’s request for interpretation, granted to the other parties on the instructions of the President of the Court and in accordance with Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure, is not to be understood as a renewed opportunity for those other parties to submit a request for interpretation, nor as an extension of the period for the presentation of such requests provided for in the Convention. Consequently, the representatives’ request for interpretation in this case will not be considered as such by this Court. However, this Tribunal deems it pertinent to refer to its rulings contained in paragraphs 209 to 211 and the third decision referred to in the operative paragraphs of said Judgment, in order to clarify the scope of the reparations ordered in relation to the violation of Article 21 of the Convention, which was also brought up in the State’s request. 19. In this regard, the Court deems pertinent to point out that, by recognizing the right of the Moiwana community members to the use and enjoyment of their traditional lands, the Court has not made any determination as to the appropriate boundaries of the territory in question. Rather, in order to render effective “the property rights of the members of the Moiwana community in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled,” and having acknowledged the lack of “formal legal title”, the Court has directed the State, as a measure of reparation, to “adopt such legislative, administrative and other measures as are necessary to ensure” those rights, after due consultation with the neighboring communities. If said rights are to be properly ensured, the measures to be taken must naturally include “the delimitation, demarcation and titling of said traditional territories”, with the participation and informed consent of the victims as expressed through their representatives, the members of the other Cottica N’djuka villages and the neighboring indigenous communities. In this case, the Court has simply left the designation of the territorial boundaries in question to “an effective mechanism” of the State’s design. 20. Therefore, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS