6 b) the name of Carmen Alfonso Melo, sister of Carlos Antonio Melo Uribe and Mario Melo Palacio, who allegedly appears in said appendix as Alfonso Melo Palacio, as their brother. Pleadings of the State 19. Regarding to the pleadings of the representatives regarding the individuals who were supposedly not included as beneficiaries in the Judgment, the State asked the Court to find the representatives’ brief out or order, “as it is actually an appeal of the ruling issued” by the Court. In this regard, they stated, inter alia, that: a) the representatives seek, under the form of a request for interpretation, to expand the content and scope of the ruling, “when there is no doubt regarding the meaning and scope” of the Judgment issued by the Court; b) there is no supervening situation or substantive error that merits modifying the Judgment; the Court directly established the criteria regarding who should be considered the “injured party” in paragraphs 234 and 235 of the Judgment; according to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and pursuant to its jurisprudence, both the Commission and the representatives had the procedural opportunity in the application and in the brief with requests and motions, respectively, to individually identify the next of kin and to provide all the evidence regarding their kinship with the victims. Nevertheless, given that the matter involved the next of kin of victims, in a manner consistent with its practice and to safeguard equality among the parties, the Court asked the representatives for the evidence that it deemed was lacking to establish who were next of kin or victims; the representatives had their procedural opportunity to refer to the issue of the beneficiaries and nevertheless they did not. Therefore they cannot, by means of a request for interpretation, which is exceptional in nature, once again argue regarding facts or rights that they should have proven at the appropriate procedural times; the representatives did not duly prove the kinship ties between the relative and the respective direct victim, for which reason several relatives were excluded from Appendix II of the Judgment. In this regard, the State did not deem that there was any error; instead, having examined the documents provided and assessed it according to the rules of competent analysis, the Court did not find sufficient evidence to include these individuals as injured parties; the Court, safeguarding the rights of the victims and finding that some of the documents supplied were not suitable to prove the kinship tie, and to avoid their being left unprotected, established a mechanism to solve this situation, which was to give the possible next of kin of victims the opportunity of going before the competent Colombian authorities to claim the compensation, insofar as they duly demonstrate said kinship, according to the provisions of paragraph 237 of the Judgment, and therefore, the ruling was undoubtedly precise regarding establishment of the injured party, fully identified in said Judgment, and regarding c) d) e) f) g) h)