7 as they are ordered based on the need for protection and, once ordered, they must be maintained provided the Court considers that the requirements of extreme gravity and urgency, and the need to prevent irreparable damage to the rights of the individuals protected by these measures continue to be met.16 19. Therefore, the characteristics of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures are different from those of the alleged victims in a case. Thus, the former fall within the circumstances set out in Article 63(2) of the Convention while the latter were identified as such during the proceedings before the Inter-American System, in accordance with the formalities laid out in the Convention. Even if, in some cases the same person may have the concurrent status of ‘beneficiary’ and ‘victim’, it is not a condition of entitlement to provisional measures that a person be held to be a “victim” by the Court. 20. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court considers that the question raised by the State in paragraph 14 is not aimed at clarifying or defining the content of some point in the aforesaid judgment; nor is it aimed at understanding the meaning of the Court’s decision because its operative paragraphs or whereas clauses are unclear or ambiguous. Therefore, it should be dismissed given that it does not meet the requirements of the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of interpretation. VI FINDING BY THE COURT REGARDING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS MR. GARCÍA-PRIETO OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION IN THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF 21. The State pointed out that in the Judgment, the Court ordered that a judicial investigation into the murder of Mr. García Prieto be conducted, but did not address the statute of limitations issue with respect to the criminal action applicable to the case. However, “it did order the State to continue and conclude the investigations”. Therefore, the State requests the Court to clarify “its finding regarding the statute of limitations of the criminal action applicable to the case, considering that the Penal Code in force in El Salvador at the time of the murder […] establishes a ten-year statute of limitations for crimes punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of more than fifteen years”. Consequently, the State argued that “the criminal action aimed at finding the truth about the death [of Mr.] García Prieto [...] is outside the jurisdiction of the Court, since the statute of limitations applicable to criminal actions is a basic principle of Criminal Law enshrined in [the] legislation” of El Salvador. 22. The Commission mentioned that the representatives and the Commission itself had requested the Court to set aside the statute of limitations applicable to the criminal action with respect to the investigation, but the Court did not ruled on the issue “since no evidence was found in the prosecutor's records […] to establish that it Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court. Request for Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of March 14, 2001, Considering clause No. 3; Case of Álvarez et al.. Provisional Measures regarding Colombia. Order of the Court of February 8, 2008, Considering clause No. 13; and Case of the GómezPaquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures regarding Peru. Order of the Court of May 3, 2008, Considering clause No. 11. 16