13 judgment, whose interpretation it is requesting,” by asserting that it is based on mere appreciations or presumptions. Therefore, “this request is itself inadmissible”; b) The “relevant fact” referred to by the State, namely, the nonparticipation of members of the Army in what happened to Juan Humberto Sánchez, which the State alleges would justify the appeal for review procedure, because it emerged after the application and its answer, which it therefore qualifies as fraudulent (supra 34.c, “does not constitute a new and decisive juridical fact, of which the InterAmerican Court was unaware when it delivered judgment.” Similarly, the evidence to which the State refers and which it contested during the public hearing and in its final written arguments, was examined by the Court at the proper time, and the Court determined that it did not have sufficient elements to verify whether or not the item of evidence was authentic. Therefore, the Court did not take it into consideration within the body of evidence of the case; because there were “numerous items of evidence that proved that [the State] had violated the human rights”; c) Regarding the State’s observation that “the Court did not agree to issue an order for helpful evidence, requesting information or verifying by scientific means the veracity of the ‘document’ [attachment 1 of the application] which the State had contested as false,” the Commission observes that the Court did not take this document into account within the body of evidence of the case and that this type of legal decision is optional and not obligatory for the Court. Therefore, this document, to which the Court did not assign any probative value, cannot justify the review of a ruling that has already acquired the status of an international res judicata; d) In relation to the State’s rejection of the argument concerning the existence of a pattern of disappearances at the time of the facts of the case, the Commission indicated that the State had the procedural opportunity to assert its objection or disagreement. In this respect, the Commission alleged that the Court has established that the interpretation of a judgment is designed to clarify or explain a judicial decision and not to review or modify issues that have already been decided. In particular, the Commission indicated that the Court gave probative value to the book “Los hechos hablan por sí mismos,” prepared by the Honduran National Human Rights Commission, in its official character and in the exercise of its constitutional functions, with regard to the pattern of forced disappearance. The case of Juan Humberto Sánchez was included in this document “because it was considered symbolic and [because] it showed that, even in July 1992, when the facts of the case occurred, there were still remnants of State disappearances, which had been State practice in the 1980s in Honduras”; and e) Lastly, the Commission indicated that it was for the Court to determine the applicable criteria for assessing evidence in each case and, for an international court, the criteria for assessing evidence were less formal