I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 1. On October 6, 2020, the Inter-American Court issued the judgment on this case and so notified the parties and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the Commission”) on December 14 of the same year. 2. On March 15, 2021, the State submitted a request for the Court to vacate the judgment for "the violation of due process and procedural fairness during the process" and, as a subsidiary motion, requested an interpretation related to the scope of two operative paragraphs of the judgment. First, it asked the Court to interpret operative paragraph seven on the State’s obligation to cover the payments to Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia's pension fund, specifying whether the State is exempt from paying the pension contributions corresponding to the time when the victim had been reinstated to her position. Likewise, it requested interpretation of operative paragraph nine on the need to adapt the internal regulations in order to guarantee the stability of provisional prosecutors. 3. On March 24, 2021, in accordance with Article 68(2) of the Rules of procedure and following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Court Registrar sent on the aforementioned request for interpretation to the victim’s representatives (hereinafter “the representatives”)1 and to the Commission, and granted them a term so that, no later than April 26, 2021, they could present in writing the observations that they considered to be pertinent. On March 30 and April 26, 2021, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, sent their observations. II JURISDICTION 4. Article 67 of the American Convention provides: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 5. Pursuant to this Article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its rulings. When examining and judging on requests for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment in reference, in accordance with Article 68(3) of the Rules of procedure. On this occasion, the Court is effectively made up of the same Judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation has been requested.2 III ADMISSIBILITY 6. It is the Court's task to verify whether the request filed by the State meets the requirements established in the norms applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely, Article 67 1 The victim's representatives are Cyrus Colombara Lopez and Branislav Marelic Rocov. In the brief of final arguments, it was reported that Maité de Rue and Juliana Vengoechea Barrios of the Open Society Justice Initiative were attending as part of the team of representatives. 2 Due to the exceptional circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, this judgment was deliberated and passed during the 142nd regular session, which was carried out remotely using technological means as required under the Court's rules. 2