SEPARATE VOTE OF JUDGE PIZA-ESCALANTE I have concurred with the unanimous vote of the Court and with the general lines of reasoning employed, but I must distance myself from the argument put forward in paragraphs 12, 14 and 15, inasmuch as they invoke the immediate -and not merely analogical- applicability of Article 67 of the Convention, which governs requests for interpretation of judgments. In this connection, I must point out that such requests relate to that norm of the Convention only with respect to the judgment; that is to say, this obviously refers to the final judgment deciding the merits of the case, to which Articles 63(1) and 66 (among others) of that same Convention refer. It is only with respect to that final judgment that an express conventional provision becomes necessary, as well as the setting of a deadline within which to legitimately request it, because, according to universal principles of procedural law (whether domestic or international) only final judgments are irrevocable and they alone can acquire the authority of res judicata. The remaining decisions, both those that pertain to the principal proceedings and those belonging to the enforcement stage, despite the fact that they are also called "judgments" whether out of habit or as a matter of fact, are interlocutory and always subject to others that, whether by means of remedies or simply through adversary jurisdiction, interpret, complement, clarify or add to or even modify or revoke them. This last, of course, in keeping with the respect due to the principle of estoppel and good faith. The so-called "compensatory damages judgment" of July 21, 1989, is not the definitive judgment ruling alluded to in Articles 63(1) and 66. Nor, consequently, is it subject to the kind of interpretation to which Article 67 of the Convention refers, although it is, of course, subject to any interpretation, complement, clarification or addition, or even modification or revocation, under the terms mentioned above. In the instant case, the final judgment or ruling could only be that of July 29, 1988, which conclusively decided on the merits of the case. This sole definitive judgment required no interpretation under the terms of Article 67, nor was any requested. Insofar as compensatory damages were concerned, it did not go beyond condemning the Government of Honduras, in the abstract, to paying such damages to the successors of Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez, reserving the fixing of the amount and form of payment to what would obviously be a subsequent state of the enforcement of judgment. Thus the Court availed itself of the customary procedural opinion of leaving for a later stage the settlement of certain general statements contained in the judgment itself, by means of decisions endowed with the same binding and enforceable force of the judgment itself (in this case, that of Articles 65 and 68 of the Convention) although lacking its nature and, as has been stated, lacking its definitiveness, that is, its irrevocability or intangibility. That is what the Court did in its decision of July 21, 1989: enforce the judgment. That is what it is doing today and what it can and possibly should continue to do in the future, for as long as the case remains open because of non-compliance with the judgment. By the foregoing I do not mean to imply either that the Court can continue indefinitely to modify its decision at the enforcement stage for as long as the familiar procedural justifications (such as, for example, nullities or a fundamental change in circumstances (rebus sic stantibus)) are not given to remove the principle of estoppel; or that it is impossible to request a clarification or interpretation of the