I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On November 2, 2021, the Court delivered the judgment in this case which was notified to the parties on November 30 that year. 2. On February 28, 2022, the victims’ representatives 1 presented a request for interpretation under Articles 67 of the Convention and 68 of the Rules of Procedure. They asked the Court to specify the scope of three measures of reparation ordered in the judgment, as follows: What are the specific time frames for advising the State of the intention of Manuela’s sons to receive a scholarship at each level of their studies? Does the Court confirm that, in accordance with paragraphs 264 and 265 of the judgment, Manuela’s sons are beneficiaries of the measure established in the eleventh operative paragraph of the judgment? When does the three-year period for monitoring compliance with the order to take the necessary measures to ensure comprehensive medical attention in cases of obstetric emergencies begin? 3. On March 3 2022, pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Court’s Secretariat forwarded a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) and to the State, granting them until April 4, 2022, to present any written observations they deemed pertinent. 4. On April 4, 2022, the Commission presented its written observations on the request for interpretation and noted, in general, “that doubts exist regarding the scope of operative paragraphs 10, 11 and 18 of the judgment arising from a reading of the judgment as a whole, and it therefore considers it desirable that the Court clarify the scope of its decisions in light of the questions raised.” The State presented its observations on the request for interpretation on the same date,. II JURISDICTION 5. Article 67 the American Convention establishes: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 6. According to this article, the Court is competent to interpret its judgments. Moreover, based on Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, when examining a request for interpretation and taking the corresponding decisions, the Court should, whenever possible, be composed of the same judges as when it delivered the respective judgment. On this occasion, the Court is composed of most of the judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation has been requested. The victims are represented by the Colectiva Feminista para el Desarrollo Local of El Salvador and the Center for Reproductive Rights, and these organizations intervened in the proceedings through Morena Herrera, and Catalina Martínez Coral, Carmen Cecilia Martínez, Edward Pérez and Maria Fernanda Perico, respectively. 1 2