3 6. The Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs was issued on January 31, 2006 and notified to the State, to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and to the representatives on February 27, 2006. 7. On June 13 and 14, 2006, pursuant to the provisions of Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and under instructions by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) sent a copy of the requests for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission, to the representatives and to the State, respectively, and informed them that they had a non-postponable deadline up to August 14, 2006 to submit such written observations as they deemed pertinent. It also reminded the State that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[t]he request for interpretation does not suspend effect of the Judgment.” 8. On August 14, 2006 the Inter-American Commission submitted its written observations on the requests for interpretation submitted by the State and by the representatives. On that same date the State submitted its written pleadings regarding the request for interpretation filed by the representatives, and the representatives submitted their written pleadings regarding to the request for interpretation filed by the State. IV ADMISSIBILITY 9. The Court must establish whether the terms of the requests for interpretation fulfill the requirements set forth in the applicable provisions, that is, Article 67 of the Convention and 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 10. Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure provides that: 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. 3. When considering a request for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought. However, in the event of death, resignation, impediment, excuse or disqualification, the judge in question shall be replaced pursuant to Article 16 of these Rules. 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “Judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 11.