13. Finally, the representatives pointed out that the construction of the memorial in the city of Belo Horizonte would eliminate the symbolic nature of the reparation measure ordered and would entail practical difficulties for the victims due to the distance between this city and Juiz de Fora, the city where all the victims reside, where Gabriel Sales Pimenta was born and where he lived for many years before his death. 14. The State indicated that it had “no observations or reservations” regarding the city in which the aforementioned memorial should be erected. A.2. Considerations of the Court 15. In the twelfth operative paragraph, the Court ordered the following: “12. The State shall create a public memorial in the city of Belo Horizonte, in the State of Minas Gerais, in the terms of paragraph 162 of this judgment.” In paragraph 162, the Court considered the need to: “2) create a public memorial in the city of Belo Horizonte, with the consent of Gabriel Sales Pimenta’s family, to value, protect and preserve the activism of human rights defenders in Brazil, including that of Gabriel Sales Pimenta.” 16. The Court notes that, in the twelfth operative paragraph and paragraph 162 of the judgment, it is established that the State shall create a public memorial to Gabriel Sales Pimienta in the city of Belo Horizonte, in the State of Minas Gerais. However, on April 22, 2021, the victims’ representatives sent a communication explaining that, due to an “involuntary error” in the pleadings and motions brief, they had proposed said city as the site for the construction of the memorial, instead of the city of Juiz de Fora, the birthplace of Gabriel Sales Pimenta. In this regard, the Court confirms that, due to a material error, the judgment designated the city of Belo Horizonte, instead of Juiz de Fora, for the construction of the memorial and now clarifies that the State shall create the aforementioned public memorial in the city of Juiz de Fora, in the State of Minas Gerais. Therefore, the aforementioned material error is rectified. B. Regarding the seventeenth operative paragraph B.1. Arguments of the parties 17. The representatives requested that the Court clarify whether the measure to create a mechanism for reopening judicial proceedings (ordered in the seventeenth operative paragraph of the judgment), “could include analysis of the reopening of the investigations and judicial proceedings related to the murder of Gabriel Sales Pimenta.” They pointed out that this request for clarification is especially relevant because, in the judgment, this Court (i) recognized that the murder of Gabriel Sales Pimenta is inserted in a “context of structural impunity characterized by threats, murders and other human rights violations against rural workers and those defending them in the state of Pará,” (ii) declared that the State violated its duty to investigate his murder with enhanced due diligence and that the application of the statute of limitations resulted from a series of state actions and omissions, and (iii) emphasized that the “state of absolute impunity” of the case affected the victims’ right to know the truth. They added that, despite these considerations, the judgment did not expressly order a measure of reparation related to the reopening of the investigations into the murder of Gabriel Sales Pimenta. 18. The State argued that the interpretation of the aforementioned operative paragraph should be limited to clarifying whether the mechanism for reopening proceedings, to be created in the future, could be applied to proceedings related to Gabriel Sales Pimenta if the 4