laws” (supra para. 27). This Court reiterates that the application of domestic inheritance laws to the distribution of the compensation for the victims recorded in the Diario Militar is the final alternative after exhausting the other scenarios established in that paragraph (supra para. 35). Nevertheless, the Court notes that the reference to domestic law in subparagraph (e) of paragraph 364 does not limit its application to the distribution criteria of domestic inheritance law, but rather relates to the fact that the compensation should be distributed in accordance with this branch of domestic law, which includes all formal and procedural requirements. Therefore, notwithstanding the considerations in paragraphs 57, 58 and 61 supra, in the cases where this scenario must be applied, the relevant requirements of domestic law must be met, as this Court has established in other cases. 32 V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 69. Therefore, THE COURT pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3) and 68 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: Unanimously, 1. To declare that the brief of the State of March 5, 2013, and similar arguments included in the State’s brief of April 30, 2013, do not constitute a request for interpretation, or have an impact on the final and non-appealable nature of the Judgment in this case under Article 67 of the American Convention. 2. To declare admissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs in the case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala filed by the representatives of the victims. 3. To rectify the material errors contained in paragraphs 367 and 388 of the Judgment, regarding the time frame for complying with the pecuniary obligations ordered in the Judgment, as well as in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 364, and in paragraph 375 regarding the beneficiaries and the method of distributing the compensation established in the Judgment, so that they reflect the rectifications made in paragraphs 24 to 26, 48 to 51 and 65. 4. To clarify, by interpretation, the meaning and scope of the provisions of paragraphs 364, 375 and 385 of the Judgment, regarding the distribution criteria and beneficiaries of the compensation established in the Judgment, in the terms of paragraphs 31 to 51, 53 to 62, 65, 67 and 68 of this Judgment of interpretation. 32 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of July 5, 2011, sixteenth considering paragraph; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 34, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 4, 2012, twenty-fourth considering paragraph. 18