I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On September 23, 2021, the Inter-American Court issued the judgment in this case, of which the parties and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also "the Commission") were notified on December 21, 2021. 2. On March 21, 2022, the victims' representative 1 submitted a request for interpretation related to the scope of paragraphs 311 and 314 of the judgment regarding the compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 3. On April 7, 2021, in accordance with Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and upon instructions from the Presidency of the Court, the Office of the Registrar of the Court transmitted the request for interpretation to the Argentine Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “the Argentine State”) and to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”), and granted them a deadline of May 6, 2022, to submit any written observations they deemed pertinent. On May 4 and 6, 2022, respectively, the State and the Commission submitted their respective observations. II JURISDICTIO N 4. Article 67 of the American Convention establishes as follows: The 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 the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 5. In accordance with this article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its judgments. To analyze a request for interpretation and resolve it as necessary, the Court must, if possible, have the same composition as when it handed down the corresponding judgment, in accordance with Article 68(3) of its Rules of Procedure. At this time, the Court is mostly still composed of the same judges that handed down the judgment of which interpretation is requested. 2 III ADMISSIBILITY 6. It falls to the Court to verify that the request presented by the representative meets the requirements established in the norms applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment—that is, Article 67 of the Convention and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure. Additionally, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “Judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 7. The Court notes that the representative submitted his request for interpretation within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention. Indeed, the judgment was notified on December 21, 2021, and therefore, the request for interpretation—filed on March 21, 2022—is admissible as far as the deadline for its submission is concerned. 1 2 Attorney Eduardo Marques Iraola is the legal representative of the victims. This judgment was deliberated and approved virtually during the 154th regular sessions. 2