15 59. This group includes the judgment of December 10, 1997 9 and November 18, 10 1998, referring to the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements. Regarding to these two judgments, in paragraphs 265 and 270 of the Judgment of February 7, 2006, the Court adopted similar solutions regarding the determination of the victims when it established that, due to the lack of sufficient and adequate evidence necessary to determine who are the SITRAMUN members-beneficiaries of said judgments, the domestic judicial authorities with jurisdiction to enforce said judgments must adopt a final decision to that respect. Thus, the schedule of victims attached to the Judgment of the Court does not list the name of any person related to those judgments, as the domestic decision is still pending. 60. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the list of victims included in the Judgment of February 7, 2006, is not a closed list because, according to the provisions of paragraphs 265, 270 and 259 of the instant Judgment and the language of the paragraphs above, the judicial determinations of the victims referred to in paragraphs 48, 49, 52, 53, 57, 58 and 59 of the instant Judgment are still pending. 2) Request for inclusion of victims 61. The Court has verified that the requests for interpretation seek the inclusion of certain persons as victims of the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006 and, in support of such request, copies of several dismissal orders have been attached (supra paras. 30 and 31). The Court finds that the request for inclusion of victims is related to the enquiries on the scope of the issues concerning the determination of victims, which were analyzed in previous paragraphs and to which it hereby refers. 62. Furthermore, in one of the requests for interpretation, petitioners request the inclusion of Thomas Ccahuancama-Ccerhuayo as beneficiary of the judgment issued by the Sala de Derecho Público (Public Law Chamber) on September 23, 1998. In this regard, the Court has proven the arguments asserted by the representatives in their request for interpretation, in the sense that said judgment of September 23, 1998 mistakenly failed to include the above-named worker as beneficiary and that said failure was cured by Order of October 13, 1998 issued by the Sala de Derecho Público (Public Law Chamber) establishing that said individual is a plaintiffbeneficiary of the judgment of September 23, 1998. 63. At the time of its Judgment of February 7, 2006, the Court was not acquainted with the above-referred mistake and the amending order, despite said order was issued on October 13, 1998. In relation to the request for inclusion of Ccahuancama-Ccerhuayo as beneficiary filed with the Court, according to the provisions of Article 67 of the Convention, the Judgment of the Court is final and the Court lacks powers to make amendments regarding the victims based on said order of October 13, 1998, that did not form part of the body of evidence weighted at the time the Judgment was delivered. 64. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the above-mentioned requests for inclusion of victims implicitly include a claim for amendment of facts deemed proven in the Judgment of the Court, which is, in turn, incompatible with the 9 Issued by the Constitutional Court of Peru. Issued by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada de Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law). 10