1) time-barred nature of the motion for clarification of the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Tribunal 72. In Article 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a period of three days is established in order to present a clarification or amplification. In the present case, on March 25, 2002, legal notice was presented to the parties of the mentioned judgment of March 12, 2002, to which any clarification should have been presented within the following three days. 73. In this regard, during the public hearing before the Court, the expert witness Jaime Rafael Vintimilla stated that “Article 43 [of the Law of Constitutional Control] expressly stated: requests to the Tribunal for reconsideration or reversal cannot be made, but a request for expansion or clarification can be made within a period of three days […]. Once published in the official record, no appeal can be made as this would infringe upon due process, the basic rights of citizens.” 74. However, in this case, the General Command filed, on April 8, 2002, a motion for clarification, that is, 14 days after legal notice of the Judgment. Additionally, it is worth mention that the aforementioned decision was published in the Official Register No. 548 on April 4, 2002, date from which, according to the current regulations was enforceable, to which the motion for clarification was submitted four days after the promulgation of the judgment. As a consequence, this Court finds that the submission of such a clarification by the General Command was time-barred. 75. In addition, both the representatives and the Commission argued that the General Command was not a party to the proceedings in the case, and as such could not request clarification. This Court notes that from the evidence presented and the norms indicated by the parties, there is not sufficient information to determine with certainty that said institution was not a party in the present matter. Or, whether third or affected parties could file a motion for clarification or amplification of the ruling. As such, this Court cannot rule on the matter. 2) lack of jurisdiction of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal to provide clarification on the ruling by way of a resolution 76. Article 285 of the Code of Civil Procedures clearly establishes that, “the judge that issued the judgment cannot repeal nor alter its sense in any case,” however, the judge can clarify or amplify its content, and that pursuant to Article 67 of the Rules for the Processing of Case Files of the Constitutional Tribunal, it is the responsibility of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal to execute the judgment of the plenary of the Tribunal. In this regard, the expert witness Jaime Rafael Vintimilla stated that Article 14 of the Law of Constitutional Tribunal “corroborated this, since it indicated that the resolutions of the Constitutional Tribunal, […] do not allow […] for any appeal. Only in the Organic Law of the Constitutional Tribunal was a motion for amplification or clarification mentioned.” 77. This Court has established that a judge, as director of the proceeding, should ensure full compliance of the rules of due process of the parties and failure to do so might open the possibility for the application of the rules of nullification. 25