2 State’s seizure and deposit of the Plumavit factory.” Ecuador stated that it “rejects this reparation measure” and it requested that “the Inter-American Court explain the scope, purpose, and especially the grounds to impose an arbitration procedure on the Ecuadorian state” (highlighted in the original). On January 23, 2008 the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following instructions of the Presidency of the Court (hereinafter “the Presidency”), reminded the State that, pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[a] request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the Judgment.”3 On February 27, 2008 the original of the request was received along with a note indicating that “the Ecuadorian State […] did not accept the arbitration procedure [… and i]nstead, […] it offer[ed] a mediation process in the independent and specialized center of the Attorney General’s Office.” 2. On February 13, 2008 the victims’ representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented a communication through which they argued an alleged lack of will on behalf of the State to execute the Judgment, in the sense that it would be refusing to participate in the arbitration procedure ordered. 3. On February 18, 2008, the State’s Deputy Agent declared that, “the Ecuadorian State sees itself in a legal impossibility to comply with an international obligation contrary to the nature of arbitration.” 4. On March 13, 2008 the Secretariat, following instructions from the Presidency, asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ecuador’s Permanent Mission before the OAS that they confirm, no later than March 27, 2008, if what was expressed by the State’s Agents was “the official position of the Esteemed State of Ecuador with regard to compliance with the Judgment issued by the Tribunal in the present case.” On April 2, 2008 the State “ratif[ied] its position to not acknowledge the establishment of an arbitration tribunal.” 5. On April 10, 2008, pursuant to Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following instructions from the Presidency, the Secretariat transmitted a copy of the request for interpretation, as well as of the State’s other briefs and the notes from the Secretariat, to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) and to the representatives, and it informed them that they had a nonrenewable time limit until May 12, 2008 to present the written arguments considered appropriate. On May 7, 2008 the State presented a new official letter with the “confirmation of the state’s position regarding the order to establish an arbitration tribunal.” On May 9, 2008 the Court forwarded this official letter to the Commission and the representatives, extending until May 23, 2008 the term to present their observations to the request for interpretation. 6. On May 23, 2008 the representatives and the Commission presented the mentioned written statements. II Jurisdiction and Composition of the Court 7. Article 67 of the Convention states that: [t]he 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 3 The Secretariat also informed the State that it would process the request for interpretation once the term given to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the victims’ representatives to present their corresponding requests for interpretation had expired.