persons who had already obtained reparation or who had not obtained reparation appeared to be based only on the reparations obtained at the domestic level due to the violation of the rights to life and to personal integrity, the Commission indicated that, “[f]rom the analysis of paragraphs 334 to 338, it was unclear whether the […] Court understood that the pecuniary reparations granted at the domestic level were sufficient to make reparation also for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from other violations declared in the Judgment to the detriment of some of these same persons, such as the violations of the rights to property and to freedom of movement and residence.” 26. The State indicated that “the request in reference seeks to contest the judgment that has been handed down by the Inter-American Court. When the petitioners argue that no compensation has been awarded for the violation of the right to property, they are not referring to a problem of interpretation. And this is because they argue the existence of a supposed error in the decision and seek to have it amended in accordance with their own arguments.” In addition, the State reiterated that “the mechanism contemplated in paragraph 337 of the Judgment was expressly established by the Court […] in relation to the declared violations to the rights to life and integrity of the group of persons included in the text” and that, therefore, “it cannot be extended to the declared violation of the right to property.” Considerations of the Court 27. Regarding this point, the Court observes that paragraph 282 of the Judgment indicates that: “[S]ince it is evident that the damage produced by the launching of a cluster bomb in Santo Domingo can be attributed to the Colombian Air Force, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 21 of the Convention in relation to 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the owners of the stores and dwellings affected, namely: Mario Galvis, Víctor Palomino, Margarita Tilano, María Cenobia Panqueva and Olimpo Cárdenas.”14 28. Furthermore, with regard to paragraph 337 of the Judgment, the Court notes that the victims of violations of the right to property – with the exception of María Cenobia Panqueva who could have recourse in her capacity as injured victim – are not included in any of the three groups of victims who meet requirements to access the domestic mechanism established in this paragraph (supra para. 19). 29. According to the evidence file, Mario Galvis, Víctor Palomino, María Cenobia Panqueva and Margarita Tilano Yanez (wife of Olimpo Cárdenas Castañeda, also declared victim of a violation of the right to property in the Judgment) had recourse to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction and requested reparation for the violations of the right to property they suffered as a result of the events of December 13, 1997. However, they were not granted pecuniary reparation by this contentious-administrative mechanism.15 In addition, the representatives did not file requests for compensation before 14 Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 282. 15 In the case of Mario Galvis, it was decided that there was no evidence of the pre-existence of the commercial establishment, Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Court of Arauca, Judge Wilson Arcila Arango. May 22, 2004 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10240). In the case of Víctor Julio Palomino, it was indicated that his ownership of the vehicle whose destruction was claimed had not been proved. Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Court of Arauca, Judge Wilson Arcila Arango. May 22, 2004 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10256). In the cases of María Cenovia Panqueva, and of Margarita Tilano Yañez and her husband Olimpo Cárdenas Castañeda, there is no specific reference to motives. Cf. Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Court of Arauca, Judge Wilson Arcila Arango. May 22, 2004 (evidence file, tome 20, folio); Judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Court of Arauca, Judge Wilson Arcila Arango. May 22, 2004 (evidence file, tome 20, folios 10240, 10253, 10256 to 10260). 8