clarification is made “in respect and memory of the victims of [Sendero Luminoso];�� and c) regarding the diffusion of the Judgment, the State indicated that this was the first time in which the Court asked Peru to broadcast by radio and television certain parts of the Judgment. The State asked the Court to consider “the contrary effect that this could generate among the population upon reference [to some aspects of the Judgment ordered by the Tribunal as a measure of reparation].” 30. Regarding the payment of the compensations ordered in the Judgment, the State mentioned that: a) “since some of the victims determined by the Court are at the same time people that have committed crimes and are currently serving time for them,” said people could “receive the compensation to, eventually, continue maintaining the subversive behavior that led them to prison, finance the so-called Communist Party of Peru -– Sendero Luminoso, and for new acts of violence.” Therefore, the State requested that “the same amount of money ordered to be paid as compensation be destined to the offering of health services, education, food, [etc.] Said payment would be made individually through an intangible fund or trust whose amounts would be the same ones established by the Court, and they could be managed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) or any entity of the Organization of American States (OAS) that can guarantee their objective and independent administration;” and b) regarding the victims that “were convicted in a due process for crimes of terrorism and who owe the State or the victims of their crimes the civil reparation, it asks if the State or the individuals entitled to civil reparation may deduct [from the compensation granted by the Court] the person’s previous debt or judicially request the withholding of the reparation that must be paid by the State.” 31. The State declared that “in the case of the victims acquitted in a procedure in a national venue will be exactly as stated literally by the […] Court and regarding the same no clarification or interpretation is presented.” 32. Finally, the request included a section called “Some final considerations”, different from the chapter on “Matters to be clarified or interpreted.” In that section, Peru, based on “Article 64 of the [American Convention,] asks the Court for its interpretation of several international treaties considering the systematic, dynamic, and evolving nature of international human rights law,” regarding the “[international” responsibility of non-state groups for the violation of human rights and crimes against humanity.” This with the objective of having the mentioned dynamic interpretation “included within the legal framework in which [the Court] appraises the claims developed in the request for interpretation” in support “of its request for a change in the modality of compliance.” 9