2 II INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 2. On April 16, 1999, Mr. Ramón Jiménez Carbo, State’s Attorney General, presented a request for interpretation of the judgment on reparations, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention and in keeping with Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. In that submission, Mr. Jiménez Carbo stated that he was the “only judicial representative of the Ecuadorian State” to submit that request. 3. By note of April 22, 1999, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), acting upon instructions from the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), asked Mrs. Laura Donoso de León, the accredited Agent in the instant case, to clarify whether, in light of the statement made by Ecuador’s Attorney General, the latter should be regarded thenceforth as Ecuador’s Agent in the proceedings for an interpretation of judgment. 4. On May 3, 1999, the Agent for the State advised the Court that “notwithstanding the fact that the Attorney General of Ecuador sent [the request] directly,” the authority invested in her was still valid. 5. By note of May 4, 1999, the Secretariat forwarded copies of the request for interpretation to Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero, victim in the instant case, and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”). As instructed by the President, the Secretariat invited them to submit whatever written comments they deemed relevant by no later than May 14 and 18 of that year, respectively. 6. On May 18, 1999, the Commission submitted its written comments on the request for interpretation. Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero submitted his comments on May 21, 1999, stating that he had not received the Secretariat’s invitation until May 13, 1999, and had therefore not had the opportunity to reply within the time limit established by the President. He therefore asked that the original time limit given be reconsidered. III PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 7. In its request for interpretation, the State petitioned the Court to “shed light on the real meaning and scope” of operative paragraphs “two, three and four, subparagraph b” of the judgment on reparations. 8. In those operative paragraphs the Court had unanimously resolved: [...] that the State of Ecuador [must pay], in the manner and under the conditions stipulated in paragraphs 101 to 112 of the judgment, a total of US$ 86,621.77 (eightysix thousand six hundred twenty-one United States dollars and seventy-seven cents) or its equivalent in Ecuador’s national currency, distributed as follows: