pleadings and motions brief, the representative did not refer to this topic or make specific arguments but rather indicated that it “shared the conclusions and recommendations” of the Report on the Merits.10 24. Based on the foregoing, it is noted that the judgment did not find any violation with respect to the representative’s pleadings of damages allegedly caused by Decree 1025/96 "and its derivations." 25. In this regard, it should be noted that in response to the State's arguments, the Commission stated the following in paragraph 101 of its Report on the Merits: The Commission concludes that the incidents that are excluded from the subject of the instant case are those regarding the failure to respond to the requests for information that were filed in order to learn about the background to the fourth whereas clause of Decree 1025/96 [...]. The allegations regarding the failure to provide reparations for the alleged harm caused by said whereas clause, as well as the alleged violations that took place in the framework of the civil lawsuit filed on August 26, 1998, are an integral part of the subject of the petition submitted in 2005.11 26. In this regard, in paragraph 186, the Commission found no violation, based precisely on its analysis of the judicial process brought by the victims to claim reparations for the alleged harm caused by the aforementioned decree. It reached the same conclusion in submission of the case. Additionally, in the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, although the representative made a specific claim for reparations, he expressed no specific arguments, instead indicating that he shared "the conclusions and recommendations" set forth in the Report on the Merits. 27. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the lack of specific allegations by the representative led to the conclusion of no violation to substantiate any reparations in the sense that is now claimed. Thus, the Court finds that the request presented does not seek clarification of some aspect of the judgment that lacks clarity or precision, but rather seeks to discuss, once again, an element that was resolved at the proper moment, something that is not possible through the interpretation of the judgment. Consequently, the Court dismisses the representative's request. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 28. Therefore, THE COURT pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and articles 31(3) and 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, DECIDES: Unanimously: 1. To dismiss as inadmissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs issued in the Case of the Julien 10 Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, footnote 327. 11 Cf. Admissibility and Merits Report No. 56/19, Case 13,392, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.172, of May 4, 2019, para. 101. 6