2 (a) “Consultation on whether the appeal for review is applicable” if the Peruvian Judiciary “[…] reaches a different conclusion to that of the responsibility of State agents for the acts against Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz”; (b) “Integration or correction of paragraph 187 of the judgment: regarding the return to Pelagia Mélida Contreras Montoya de Cantoral of the sum of US$7,500.00 given to Saúl Cantoral Huamaní by the National Federation of Mining, Metallurgy and Steel Workers of Peru, instead of to the said Mining Federation”; and (c) “Clarification of paragraph 185 of the judgment […] concerning the factual or legal status of Elisa Huamaní Infanzón […]”. 2. On November 6, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) forwarded a copy of the application for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) and to the representatives of the victims and their next of kin (hereinafter “the representatives”). It also informed the Commission and the representatives that they could submit any written arguments they deemed pertinent by December 10, 2007, at the latest. Finally, it reminded the State that, as established in Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[a]n application for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment.” 3. On December 7, 2007, the representatives submitted their written arguments and asked the Court “to reject all aspects of the application for interpretation.” 4. On December 10, 2007, the Commission submitted its written arguments and stated that “the scope and the content of the operative paragraphs of the judgment are clear; consequently the questions raised in the request made by the Peruvian State are inadmissible.” II COMPETENCE AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 5. Article 67 of the Convention establishes that: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 6. According to this article, the Court has competence to interpret its judgments. In order to examine the application for interpretation and take the respective decision, it should, if possible, have the same composition it had when delivering the respective judgment, according to Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is composed of those judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation has been requested by the State. III ADMISSIBILITY