12 35. Finally, the Court recalls that States cannot invoke the provisions set forth in their domestic laws to justify non-compliance with international obligations.11 The Tribunal has especially held that [] regarding domestic laws, and regarding reparations ordered by the Court, their compliance shall not be subjected to modification or non-observance by the respondant 12 States through invocation of provisions of their own domestic laws. 36. Due to the foregoing reasons, the Court decides to dismiss the request for interpretation related to the aspect set forth by the State about “[its] concern for the scope of the measures ordered by the […] Court in compensation for non pecuniary damages to María Victoria Cruz Franco” (supra para. 24), because it does not adapt in its terms to the provisions set forth in Articles 67 of the Convention and 29(3) and 59 of the Regulation. VIII DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMPENSATION FIXED BY THE COURT BY WAY OF NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES SUFFERED BY THE MOTHER OF ERNESTINA AND ERLINDA SERRANO CRUZ 37. Arguments of the State El Salvador requested the Court to “explain the scope of the decision […] enacting that the compensation awarded to Mrs. Cruz Franco should be delivered to her children on an equitable basis, and particularly whether this order includes Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz”. “To this respect, since it is evident that there is more than a reasonable doubt regarding the survival or existence of the aforementioned girls, […], it should be understood that they should also be called to the succession originated by the same mother, and under equal conditions as the other siblings. Therefore, the US$ 80[.]000[,]00 awarded to Mrs. Cruz Franco by way of non pecuniary damages should be divided into [] eight equal parts”. 38. Arguments of the Commission a “the judgment is clear in paragraphs from 208 to 216 and does not require further interpretation by the Court”. “[There] is no gap whatsoever in the ruling of the Tribunal”; and 11 Cfr. Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 257; Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 23, para. 133; Case of Ricardo Canese. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 148. 12 Baena Ricardo Case et al. Competition. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 61. On the same lines, Cfr. Acosta Calderón Case, supra note 3, para. 147; YATAMA Case, supra note 3, para. 257; and Fermín Ramírez Case, supra note 3, para. 123.