restitution measure, b) the representative's request for interpretation regarding the amount set as compensation for pecuniary damage for lost income, c) the State's request for interpretation regarding the legal modifications ordered as a guarantee of nonrepetition, and d) the State's request for interpretation regarding the reimbursement of expenditures in the compliance monitoring stage of the judgment. A. The representative's request for interpretation regarding the restitution measure A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 13. The representative requested clarification of paragraph 132 of the judgment, which states that “it [was] not viable in this case to order the victim’s reinstatement as requested.” She noted that, while the judgment recognized the right to job stability in paragraphs 104 to 109, it also indicated that the victim's reinstatement was not possible because the position from which he had been dismissed was now occupied. In this regard, she stated that the following needed to be clarified: “[t]he right to job stability not necessarily in the same position, but in another available one [...] of the same nature and function.” She stated that by now there would be one, because with the implementation of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in the Peruvian capital, the State has announced several job openings of the same nature as the position the victim had held. 14. She argued that the State misled the Court when it asserted that there were no openings of the same nature as the one the victim had held. With the restructuring of the three prosecutor's offices in Huamanga province and their transformation into one joint provincial prosecutor's office, said position would remain. She noted that in November of 2020, there was a job announcement for Provisional Deputy Provincial Prosecutor for the First Joint Provincial Criminal Prosecutor's Office of Huamanga. She added that the second issue requiring clarification was that the victim’s request for reinstatement included “all the legal prerogatives to which he was entitled as of [the date],” so the “provincial prosecutor's office would be suitable [for the position of] provisional senior deputy prosecutor.” However, the Peruvian state failed to report that it does in fact have job openings of that type. 15. The State asserted that the representative’s arguments had already been evaluated by the Court in the judgment. It noted that the request goes beyond doubts about the meaning or scope of paragraph 132 and instead is intended to challenge the merits of the case, with the eventual effect of changing an operative paragraph of the judgment. It asked that the representative’s request be rejected. 16. The Commission noted the importance of the Court assessing the representative’s request “in light of” applicable law and of the standards developed in its case law regarding the interpretation of its judgments. A.1. Considerations of the Court 17. Regarding the restitution measure ordered in the judgment, this Court recalls that paragraph 132 of the judgment declared the following: With regard to the State’s arguments, the Court notes that, by a resolution of the National Council of the Judiciary of February 9, 2005, an official was appointed to assume, as the incumbent, the post occupied by Mr. Casa Nina at the time his designation ended. This situation reveals that, in this specific case, it is not viable to order the victim’s reinstatement as requested. 4