the Court in relation to the violation of the right to property in favor of two of these victims.16 In other words, the domestic contentious administrative courts had already attended the requests for reparation of these persons for the damage caused to their properties and had taken a decision in this regard. 30. Consequently, since it is not incumbent on the Court to re-assess the suitability of the domestic mechanisms to establish adequate redress for the violations of the rights that were declared, this aspect of the request for interpretation is inadmissible, because accepting the interpretation proposed by the representatives would suppose modifying or expanding the decision taken in the Judgment, and this is not possible pursuant to Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. C. Third and fourth questions with regard to the 27 victims of forced displacement Arguments of the representatives and observations of the Commission and the State 31. The representatives indicated that “none of the victims in this case were compensated for the forced displacement they underwent.” Thus, they argued that “although the Court recognizes a group of [these] victims as injured party, it does not attribute any legal consequence to this recognition,” so that it is necessary to clarify “what reparations are due to the victims of forced displacement that the Court individualizes as injured persons, and their next of kin.” Accordingly, the representatives asked whether the 27 victims of forced displacement recognized in paragraph 268 of the Judgment could have recourse to the compensation mechanism established in paragraph 337 of the Judgment for this concept. 32. Also, in the opinion of the representatives, “in both paragraph 266 and paragraph 338 of the Judgment it is reiterated that the victims of forced displacement who did not have recourse to the Inter-American Court or who were not recognized as victims in the proceedings before the Court may file claims at the domestic level for this concept.”17 Therefore, they asked the Court to clarify whether the victims of forced displacement could file administrative actions against the State for the facts of the forced displacement or have recourse to Law 288 of 1996.18 33. The Commission did not present specific observations, or add to those it had made previously. 34. The State considered that the representatives’ request sought to contest the Judgment and that it “suggests the existence of a supposed error in the decision, with the subsequent claim for additional compensation to be recognized. The State reiterated that the universe of victims entitled to claim the compensation established in paragraph 337 is clearly defined in the said text, so that any expansion to victims of Article 22 of the 16 The representatives did not file claims under this heading before this Court on behalf of Margarita Tilano Yanez and her husband Olimpo Cárdenas Castañeda. 17 They added that in “this situation are, for example, those who helped to evacuate the injured, those who were in their homes or in public establishments and were not struck by the AN-M1A2 device, but it has been proved by their testimony before the domestic organs that, on December 13, 1998, they were in the village of Santo Domingo.” 18 Law of July 9, 1996, establishing instruments to compensate damage to the victims of human rights violations, based on the decisions of specific international human rights organs. 9