7 understands that Peru had the adequate time and procedural opportunity to exercise its right to defense in this regard. As can be seen from note CDH-10.435/099 sent to the State Agent by the Secretariat of the Court on March 14, 2007, and received by the Embassy of Peru in Costa Rica the following day, the State received, among other documentation, a copy of the death certificate of Elisa Huamaní Infanzón which states that she died on August 17, 1989. The Court notes that, at no time, did the State object to this death certificate or contest other evidence that proved her death on this date, including the testimonial evidence given at the public hearing held in this case. 28. The Court found it had been proved that, at the time of her son’s death, Elsa Infazón Huamaní was still alive and that she died after the execution of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní, based on the appropriate documentary evidence issued by the State itself: her death certificate, and testimonial and expert evidence in the file of this case, which was not contested by the State during the proceedings on the merits of the case. 29. The State’s allegation in this regard is made in a totally inadmissible manner and seeks to dispute a question of fact that was already considered at the appropriate procedural occasion and regarding which the Court has already adopted a decision; consequently it does not merit being admitted at the current stage of interpretation of judgment. The Court considers that this aspect of the application for interpretation is inadmissible. VII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 30. Based on the foregoing, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: Unanimously, 1. To declare inadmissible the application for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs in the case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz filed by the State in relation to the first and third points (supra para. 1(a) and (c), because is it not in keeping with the provisions of Articles 67 of the Convention and 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure, as indicated in paragraphs 16 and 17 and 27 to 29 of this judgment. 2. To declare admissible the application for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs in the case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz filed by the State in relation to the second point (supra para. 1(b); that is, regarding the “[i]ntegration or correction of paragraph 187 of the judgment [on merits],” the meaning and scope of which have been determined by the Court in paragraphs 21 to 23 of this judgment on interpretation. 3. To require the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to notify this judgment to the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin.