iii. US$16,000.00 (sixteen thousand United States dollars) for expenses of an extrajudicial nature. b) And also, US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency to the injured parties, Richard Blake, Mary Blake, Richard Blake Jr. and Samuel Blake, to reimburse the expenses they incurred in processing the case before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, as established in paragraph 70 of this judgment. [...] 8. After examining Guatemala’s presentation, the Court concludes that the request seeks the interpretation of two points in the judgment on reparations in relation to the judgment on merits. 9. The first issue refers to determining whether the compensation ordered by the Court under the heading “expenses of an extrajudicial nature” (judgment on reparations), may be considered within the concept of “expenses incurred in their representations to the Guatemalan authorities in connection with this process” (judgment on merits) (supra 6). 10. A second aspect of the request for interpretation refers to the Court’s ruling that the injured parties should be paid US$10.000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars) to “reimburse expenses they incurred in processing the case before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights”. In this respect, the State’s request inquires whether the Commission and the Court can be included in the “category of Guatemalan authorities”. 11. Having determined the aspects of the judgment on reparations on which the State has requested its interpretation, the Court will now proceed to consider admissibility. IV ADMISSIBILITY 12. As a condition of the admissibility of a request for interpretation of judgment, Article 67 of the Convention requires that it should be presented “within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment”. In the instant case, the Court has verified that the judgment on reparations was notified to the State on January 25, 1999. Therefore, the request for interpretation of April 21, 1999, was presented within the time limit (supra 2 ). 13. With regard to the comments presented by the Commission and by the next of kin of Nicholas Blake, they were also presented within the appropriate period and, therefore, the Court considers that it is admissible to examine them. 14. It now corresponds to the Court to verify whether the request for interpretation complies with the regulatory requirements. In this respect, Article 58.1 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that [t]he request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested.