2 I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On November 26, 2013, the Court issued the judgement in this case, which was notified to the parties and the Commission on December 23 of the same year. 2. On March 21, 2014, the Peruvian State submitted a request for interpretation regarding 4 aspects of the judgment: (1) the reparation that ordered a reform of the criminal definition of the crime of enforced disappearance to meet international standards; (2) the considerations about amnesty laws; (3) the reparation ordered regarding training programs for the Armed Forces, and (4) the compensation amounts ordered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 3. On March 18, 2014, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Court’s Secretariat sent the request for interpretation to the representatives of the victims1 and the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) and gave them until April 30, 2014, to present the written observations they considered relevant. 4. On April 28 and 30, 2014, the representatives and the Inter-American Commission submitted their respective observations to the State’s request for interpretation. II JURISDICTION 5. Article 67 of the American 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. Pursuant to said article, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its judgments. In order to examine the request for interpretation and to decide in respect of this matter, the Court must, whenever possible, be composed of the same judges who delivered the corresponding judgment, in accordance with Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is composed, mostly, of the same judges who delivered the Judgment whose interpretation has been requested by the State. III ADMISSIBILITY 7. The Court must verify if the request submitted by the State meets the requirements established in the applicable rules for requests of interpretation of judgments, namely, Article 67 of the Convention, previously cited, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedures, which establishes in its pertinent part, that: 1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits, or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which interpretation is requested. […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. The organization Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) is acting as the representatives of the victims in the present case. 1