8 Honorable Court to establish the amounts that the State must pay as compensation”, due to its inconsistency with the provisions set forth in Articles 67 of the Convention, and 29(3) and 59 of the Rules. VII COMPENSATION FOR NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES INFLICTED TO THE MOTHER OF ERNESTINA AND ERLINDA SERRANO CRUZ 24. Arguments of the State a) expressed its “concern for the measures ordered by the [ …] Court […,] because when the Judgment was delivered [Mrs. María Victoria Cruz Franco, the mother of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz …,] was deceased”; b) Article 30 of the Code of Private International Law states that “[e]ach State enforces its own legislation to declare the extinction of the civil personality of an individual as a result of natural death” and the Salvadoran Civil Code in force, sets forth in article 77 [… that ] the person ends at the time of its natural death”. “In this sense, in accordance with the Salvadoran Legislation, a person is entitled to rights while the person exists [,] therefore, since Mrs. Cruz Franco was deceased at the time the judgment was entered, she was not entitled to compensation for non pecuniary damages, and consequently could not transmit those rights to her children through succession”; and c) “express[ed] [its] surprise […] at the affirmation of the [] Honorable Court that the right to claim compensation for non material damages is transferable through inheritance, and considers the inputs [of the Tribunal] of great importance in this regard, since this situation must be clearly determined for purposes of executing the judgment”. 25. Arguments of the Commission a) “The State[…] does not seek that the [Tribunal] interprets the meaning or scope of the judgment, but rather that it reviews and reconsider the final and unappealable judgment entered by the Court, because it disagrees with the decisions contained in it”. “Consequently this is a hidden appeal, inadmissible in accordance with the rules of the Court” b) the State does not seek that the Court clarifies any doubt regarding the meaning and scope of the ruling by which the mother of the Serrano Cruz sisters was awarded the beneficiary status, “but rather that the Tribunal reviews the judgment whose interpretation it requested; and c) article 63(1) of the Convention is quite broad with respect to reparation, and does not limit it to the internal legislation of each individual State. “Consistent with its jurisprudence and competition, at the time of deciding on the beneficiaries in the instant case, the Court deemed that the mother of the