Judgment, the Court ordered the State to "pay the amounts still owed, directly to the victims whose names are listed in Annex 1 or to their successors as defined by applicable domestic law”. Thus, the Court notes that the issue was decided in the Judgment, and it is not possible to seek the modification of the reparation measure ordered through the pleadings on a request for interpretation. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is an issue that can be raised during the monitoring of compliance with the Judgment. 20. In conclusion, this Court interprets that the term "installment" should be understood as equivalent to "portion" in the sense that the payment of the totality of the amounts established in this Judgment as a restitution measure may be made in three installments, with the first installment to be paid no later than December 21, 2022; the second, no later than December 21, 2023; and the third, no later than December 21, 2024. B. On the criteria for payment of restitution and compensation, and reimbursement of costs and expenses B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 21. The State alleged that there is lack of precision in the criteria established regarding payments ordered in the Judgment. It indicated that paragraph 232 of the Judgment establishes the time period and the particular criteria for updating the amounts ordered as a restitution measure. However, it argued that the eighth operative paragraph, which refers to the payment of compensatory damages and reimbursement of costs and expenses, also indicates that it must be made pursuant to paragraphs 232 to 238 of the Judgment. Likewise, it argued that paragraph 233 mentions the one-year term within which the payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the reimbursement of costs and expenses must be made, without referring to the restitution payment. However, the fourth operative paragraph on the restitution measure sets out that paragraph 233 was also applicable to it. It further noted that paragraphs 234, 235 and 238 made general reference to "the respective amount", "the monetary obligations" or "the amount owed", without specifying which amounts were referred to. Chile also requested clarification as to whether paragraph 236 also applies to the restitution payment or only to the compensatory payment. To sum up, Chile requested that, for each of the measures ordered in the fourth and eighth operative paragraphs, the criteria that should be applied to make such payments be specified. 22. The representatives replied that the modality of compliance with the payments ordered, depending on the nature of the payment, should be understood as that which is most aligned with the Judgment itself, in terms of ensuring payment through a regulated and progressive mechanism for full and timely compliance. Thus, they considered that the reference made in the operative paragraphs referring to payments should be understood as the type of payment described and not to any other, maintaining as common modalities, those that effectively have that nature, according to paragraphs 232 to 238. They added that the request for interpretation is improper, since there is no disagreement on the meaning or scope of the Judgment, since the Court has resorted to criteria common to other Judgments, which have gone through the compliance phase without difficulties. 23. The Commission observed that clarifying the points raised by the State can facilitate the process of monitoring compliance with the judgment and expedite compliance with the reparation measures, which is extremely important in the instant 6