4 hypothetical situations is not consistent with the purpose of a request for interpretation of a Judgment.7 13. With this in mind, the Court will examine the issues presented by the State as well as the observations submitted by the representatives and the Commission, respectively, and will determine their validity. If the Court finds the Interpretation request valid, it will make the proper clarifications and specifications to assist in the effective implementation of the reparations ordered in the judgment, without broadening their scope. Similarly, it is proper to recall that if that were the case, the Court would be simply clarifying the text of its reasonings and considerations in the judgment, which is final and not subject to appeal (supra para. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.), as well as eliminating any doubts about its original scope. 14. The Court will consider each of the four issues raised by the State separately, in the following order: (A) the reparation that ordered reforms to the criminal definition of the crime of enforced disappearance to meet international standards; (B) the considerations about amnesty laws; (C) the reparation ordered regarding training programs for the Armed Forces, and (D) the compensation amounts ordered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. A. The reparation that ordered reforms to the criminal definition of the crime of enforced disappearance to meet international standards Arguments of the parties and the Commission 15. The State indicated that, in paragraph 211 of the judgment, the Court established that the lack of an adequate definition of the crime of enforced disappearance was not a specific element that hindered the effective investigations or proceedings opened for the enforced disappearance of Mr. Jeremías Osorio Rivera. It added that, however, in paragraph 271 and in the twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment, the Court reiterated the obligation to adapt the pertinent domestic legislation, an issue that had been ordered in the judgment in the case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. 16. The State highlighted that the Inter-American Court has indicated “in repeated jurisprudence that 'the contentious jurisdiction of the Court is not intended to review national legislation in the abstract, but must be exercised to hear specific cases where it is alleged that an act of the State, executed against individuals, violates the provisions of the Convention'”. In this sense, the State indicated that “in its considerations on the merits of the dispute, the Inter-American Court did not find that the provision of Article 320 of the Criminal Code generated a violation of the American Convention in the specific case. Therefore, it could not have generated a duty for the State to repair the alleged harm. However, […] the reform of the pertinent legislation was included in the section corresponding to reparations.” For this reason, the Peruvian State asked the Court to interpret this specific point of the Judgment, submitting the following question: “is the reparation that ordered the adaptation of the criminal definition of enforced disappearance directly related to the facts identified by the Court that caused the violations in the case of Jeremías Osorio Rivera et al. v Peru, or is it a reiteration made by the Court on the basis of previous cases decided in regard to the Peruvian State in which it has ordered a similar measure of reparation?” 17. The representatives indicated that the request for interpretation on this issue should be declared inadmissible. They maintained that, although it is true that the Court indicated in paragraph 211 of the judgment that the definition of the crime of enforced disappearance did not have direct repercussions in the specific case, in paragraph 212 of the same judgment, the Court concluded that, while the definition of the aforementioned crime is not adapted to international standards, the State Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 62, para. 27, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 18. 7