6 that will maintain its purchasing power. This should be done not only for each of the payments of interest thereon but also for the payment of the principal when it becomes due and payable to the beneficiary on her twenty-fifth brithday, May 3, 2007. 20. The Commission stated that There are different ways of setting up a simple and clear protective mechanism that could be established by the Court in the clarification of judgment requested. None of them would offer complete protection to the beneficiaries, nor could they preserve absolutely the compensatory intent of the judgment, but at least they would to some degree counteract the current lack of protection and the expected loss of value. The Commission is of the opinion that a suitable adjustment mechanism would be to estimate the real value of the capital placed in trust in United States dollars of October 20, 1989, and maintain it at that same value throughout the life of the trust. To achieve this, it should be adjusted to the amount of lempiras necessary to purchase that fixed amount of dollars initially arrived at on the free international exchange market. Thus, each interest payment would be calculated in lempiras on a principal, also in lempiras, readjusted on the basis of the mechanism described. 21. In a brief dated November 16, 1989, the Government based its opposition to the Commission's request on the following arguments: 1. The compensatory damages judgment handed down by the Honorable Court on July 21, 1989, in the case of SAUL GODINEZ CRUZ is perfectly clear and precise both in its findings and in its operative parts and thus needs no clarification or interpretation, inasmuch as that judgment fixes uniquivocally the amount of lempiras to be set up in trust at the Central Bank and the interest rate that the trust fund shall accrue annually in that same currency. 2 In fixing the total amount of compensatory damages and the form of payment thereof, as regards both the amount corresponding to the trust and any earnings thereon, the Court selected the currency of the country in which the judgment was to be executed, that is, Honduras, without taking into consideration, or conditioning the judgment to, any possible decrease in the purchasing power of the Honduran currency; in addition, the judgment did not contemplate any other monetary guideline to serve as an adjustment index for the maintenance of such purchasing power. 3. Since such circumstances were not foreseen in the compensatory damages judgment, what the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is seeking in its request for clarification is that the Honorable Court amend its Judgment of July 21, 1989, by introducing new factors of a monetary nature to its operative parts, when it asks the Court to provide for some index against which the damages settlement should be adjusted in order to maintain its purchasing power unaltered. As already stated, this is something that the judgment does not address. For the above reasons, the Government of Honduras respectfully requests that the Honorable Court reject the request presented by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. 22. The Commission stated the following in its brief of July 6, 1990: ...eight months after the deadline set by the Court, the judgment has still not been complied with, resulting in various damages to the injured parties. The damages stem from two sources: first, the time elapsed since October 20, 1989, without the injured parties having access to the use and enjoyment of the compensation due; and second, the devaluation of the