I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On November 15, 2021, the Inter-American Court issued the judgment in this case, of which the parties and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also "the Commission") were notified on December 20, 2021. 2. On February 22, 2022, the State submitted a request for interpretation related to the scope of the provisions of paragraph 279 of the Judgment, regarding the distribution of a victim’s compensation among his heirs, as well as the provisions of paragraph 278, regarding the possibility of deducting from the compensation amounts set in the Judgment the sums of money delivered to the victims as reparations prior to its issuance. 1 3. On February 23, 2022, in accordance with Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and upon instructions from the Presidency, the Office of the Registrar of the Court transmitted the above request for interpretation to the representatives of the victims 2 (hereinafter "the representatives") and to the Commission, and granted them a deadline of March 24, 2022, to submit any written observations they deemed pertinent. On March 24, 2022, the Commission submitted its comments. The representatives did not submit any comments to the State’s request for interpretation. II JURISDICTIO N 4. Article 67 of the American Convention establishes as follows: 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. 5. In accordance with this article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its judgments. To analyze requests for interpretation and resolve them as necessary, the Court must, if possible, have the same composition as when it handed down the corresponding judgment, in accordance with Article 68(3) of its Rules of Procedure. At this time, the Court is composed of the same judges that handed down the judgment of which interpretation is requested. III ADMISSIBILITY 6. It falls to the Court to verify that the request presented by the State meets the requirements established in the norms applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment—that is, Article 67 of the Convention and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure. Additionally, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “Judgments and The State also noted an editing error in the judgment. The Court corrected the error on its own motion, in accordance with Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. The parties and the Commission were notified on February 23, 2022. The notification also clarified that the editing correction pointed out by Uruguay was not part of the judgment interpretation process. 1 2 The victims are represented by the Instituto de Estudios Legales y Sociales de Uruguay (IELSUR). 2