number of victims that is much lower than those on the lists provided. Notwithstanding this, and considering that the State itself provided a list of 936 individualized victims, the Court considers it essential that, in the context of the Single List of Victims that is being drawn up […], the State proceed to make a conclusive determination of other individuals who should also be considered victims and, as appropriate, beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. […] 20. Now, in the context of the request for interpretation of the Judgment, the representatives, the State and the Commission have referred to the massive and indiscriminate nature of the massacres, as well as to the complexity represented by the borders of the political-administrative division of the territories and have indicated that some of the localities excluded by the Court in its Judgment “are adjoining, nearby or part of the seven places of the massacre specified in the Judgment.” The Court finds that the representatives’ request and the Commission’s arguments seek that the Court consider that places such as the canton of Tierra Colorada, the village of El Pinalito, the canton of Guacamaya and the town of Arambala are included within the factual framework of the case, with a view to the determination of victims, which would involve modifying the provisions of paragraph 56 of the Judgment, in which it is explained that: “the factual framework of this case does not include events that occurred in […] the departmental capital of Arambala, or in the canton of Tierra Colorada, the village of Pinalito, and the village of Guacamaya.” In short, the Court notes that, under the appearance of a request for interpretation, basically, it is a disagreement with the Court’s decision that is being introduced by means of an assessment of factual and legal issues that have already been raised at the appropriate procedural opportunity and regarding which this Court has already adopted a decision. This would constitute a modification of what was established in paragraph 56 of the Judgment. Added to this, it should be noted that, in their request for interpretation, the representatives did not identify anyone who had been excluded as a victim by the considerations included in paragraph 56 of the Judgment. The Court reiterates that the formulation of abstract or hypothetical situations bears no relationship to the purpose of a request for interpretation of judgment. Consequently, this element of the request for interpretation is declared inadmissible, because there is no possibility that the judgment can be modified or expanded, pursuant to Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 12 21. Notwithstanding the foregoing decision, bearing in mind that one of the requirements for the admissibility of a request for interpretation is that it must seek the clarity or precision of the operative paragraphs of the Judgment or of considerations that have an impact on those operative paragraphs (supra para. 17), the Court finds it pertinent to proceed to analyze the considerations submitted by the representatives that relate to the implementation of the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote,” based on the provisions of the Judgment and given the complexity of determining who should be considered victims under this mechanism. 22. In this regard, the representatives indicated, on the one hand, that the territorial limitations established in paragraph 56 of the Judgment “w[ould be] incompatible with the indiscriminate nature of the massacres and with the [Court’s] decision to apply the provisions of Article 35(2) of its Rules of Procedure, as well as with the State’s obligation to identify all the victims of the events who were not determined by the Court.” On the other hand, they referred to the determination of victims at the domestic level by means of the “Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote” and considered it pertinent that the Court issue a clarification 12 34. Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, para. 31, and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. para. 7