domestic level.” Thus, the Court considers that this aspect of the request for interpretation is inadmissible. F. Seventh question: If there are other family members of victims of the violation of the right to life who did not have recourse to the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction, and who were not represented at the inter-American level, can they have recourse to the mechanism established in paragraph 337 of the Judgment or to the mechanism of Law 288 of 1996? Arguments of the representatives and observations of the State 55. The representatives asked the Court to clarify whether other family members of victims of the violation of the right to life who did not have recourse to the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction, and who were not represented at the inter-American level, could be understood to be included under the provisions of paragraph 337 of the Judgment or whether they can have recourse to the mechanisms of Law 288 of 1996. The Commission did not present observations on this point. The State referred to the situation of these persons together with the arguments relating to the situation of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero (supra para. 46) Considerations of the Court 56. On this point, the Court reiterates its consideration concerning the previous question, indicating that paragraph 337 does not refer to next of kin – of victims who died – who were not identified in the Judgment. Consequently, if they exist, it does not correspond to consider these next of kin in the said mechanism, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 338 of the Judgment (supra para. 50). Moreover, it is not for this Court to determine which domestic provisions may be applicable or relevant, or to indicate which persons are entitled to have recourse to them. Consequently, this aspect of the request for interpretation is inadmissible. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 57. Therefore, THE COURT pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3) and 68 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: unanimously, 1. To reject as inadmissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations delivered in the case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, filed by the representatives of the victims, for the reasons indicated in the relevant paragraphs of this Judgment. 15