requirements for this were met. It also argued that an eventual interpretation that would determine the reopening of the proceedings related to the death of Mr. Sales Pimenta would imply a new operative paragraph, which is not permitted at this procedural stage. B.2. Considerations of the Court 19. This Court recalls that in the seventeenth operative paragraph of the judgment, it ordered the following: “17. The State shall create a mechanism for reopening judicial proceedings under the terms of paragraph 180 of this judgment.” In particular, in paragraph 180, it indicated that: 180. […] without prejudice to the duty of State authorities to comply with the judgments of this Court, and to conduct the respective Convention-based judicial review within its jurisdiction, the Court finds it appropriate to order the State to create within three years a mechanism that follows existing best practices for reopening judicial investigations and trials, including those that have exceeded the statute of limitations, when the Court declares in a judgment the State’s international responsibility for failing to fulfill its duty to investigate human rights violations with diligence and impartiality. 20. In this regard, the Court recalls that it referred to existing best practices in footnote 262, among which it mentioned the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 906 of 2004) of Colombia, which states in Article 192 that: “a review action is appropriate (…) [w]hen after a judgment in cases of human rights violations or serious infringements of international humanitarian law, an international body responsible for supervision and review of human rights – whose jurisdiction the State of Colombia has formally accepted – issues a ruling declaring the State’s conspicuous failure to fulfill its duty to investigate such violations earnestly and impartially. In such cases, it is unnecessary to confirm the existence of new facts or evidence that was unknown at the time of the deliberations.” 21. Similarly, and insofar as it is relevant for the resolution of the present request for interpretation, the Court also recalls that, in the chapter corresponding to the “obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute, and, as appropriate, punish those responsible,” this Court indicated in paragraphs 143 to 146 that: 143. The Court recalls that this case concerns the violent death of a human rights defender who fought for the land rights of rural workers, in a context of structural impunity for violent deaths of human rights defenders. In this case, it is clear that the gross negligence of judicial officials, who failed to carry out a serious, effective investigation to determine what really happened to Mr. Sales Pimenta, turned the passage of time into a tool for impunity, as it allowed the statute of limitations to be applied. (emphasis added) 144. The Court reiterates that the States have a duty to exercise enhanced due diligence for the violent deaths of human rights defenders because these defenders play a vital role for democracy. In this case, the proceedings were not conducted with enhanced due diligence – quite the opposite. The gross negligence of judicial officials allowed absolute impunity to prevail, as it did in the broader context at the time. 145. The Court has noted the context of structural impunity with respect to violence against human rights defenders of rural workers. It therefore deems it appropriate to order the State to create a working group to identify the causes and circumstances that give rise to that impunity and to develop lines of action aimed at rectifying them. 22. Accordingly, the Court considers that the transcribed texts are clear and precise in indicating that the measure ordered in relation to the State’s obligation to investigate the facts of this case and identify, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those responsible, is the creation of a working group. However, as the State has indicated, this does not preclude that, once the mechanism in question has been created (supra para. 19), the authorized persons may make use of it in connection with the facts of this case. However, it is also necessary to 5