Arguments of the Inter-American Commission 33. The Commission presented observations of a general nature and other specific ones to the request for interpretation presented by the State. Regarding the first it stated that “the brief presented by the State […] does not seek that [the Court] interpret the sense or scope of the judgment […] but instead it seeks a revision and inclusion of additional matters in the final and unappealable judgment issued by [the Tribunal] that were not object of the action, as acknowledged by the claimant itself.” In what refers to the specific observations it stated that “the manner in which the public act of acknowledgement of responsibility and compensation must be carried out is clearly determined in paragraph 445 of the Judgment,” therefore the appropriateness of making reference during said act to “the juridical situation of 31 people […] who had been convicted by the national authorities due to their militancy in the subversive group Sendero Luminoso […] or that, as expressed by the State, are fully acknowledged by society as members of the leadership of Sendero Luminoso,” is “inappropriate and inadmissible.” Similarly, the Commission mentioned that the State proposed “a reconsideration of the broadcasting of the relevant parts of the judgment through radio and television” based on the alleged “contrary effect that could be generated among the population by referring only to the facts of the present case without mentioning the violence attributable to Sendero Luminoso […],” and stated that said “question made by the State results inadmissible” and that “it is […] within the framework of the follow-up and evaluation process of the implementation of said reparations where this type of consultation may be presented.” Finally, with regard to payment of the compensations, the Commission stated that the “Tribunal has already determined with complete clarity the form and terms in which said payments must be made” and that “the Judgment clearly establishes […] that the compensations must be delivered to their beneficiaries. Any process following the effective payment of said compensations, carried out within the domestic realm with the objective of fulfilling the pending civil obligations of some of said beneficiaries, is not the object of the present case.” Arguments of the common intervener 34. The common intervener declared that the State’s request does not consist in a request for clarification of aspects of the Judgment that “are in its understanding obscure or unclear.” Specifically, she stated that Peru “[…] is clear regarding the operative paragraphs and the terms established by the Tribunal in the Proven Facts of the Judgment and the object of its brief is instead to propose a change of said terms since it is not satisfied with them.” Likewise, the common intervener stated that she represents the “next of kin of people that were never detained, Peruvian citizens that have never been submitted to any criminal proceeding […] as well as direct victims of the attack to pavilions 1A and 4B who were acquitted or pardoned in the proceedings that motivated their arrest and others that having been sentenced but are not members of Sendero Luminoso.” She added that “among the beneficiaries and next of kin of the prisoners that were murdered or that suffered the attack […] there are all types of people, including members of the Peruvian police […],” and that “what happened to the group of people affected by the massacre occurred in the Castro 10