“must be taken into account when the legislature makes the necessary legal amendments to comply with the Court’s orders.” 19. The State put forward four arguments in this regard to substantiate its request. In the first place, it cited the relevant articles of the General Telecommunications Law (hereinafter, “LGT”) which establish the different names of the radio spectrum, as well as the classification of its bands. In the second place, it argued that “Guatemala does not recognize community radio stations in its legal system nor the use of radio frequencies designated for the organizations listed at the time the LGT was enacted.” In the third place, it mentioned that the SIT had carried out planning activities “that guarantee[d] the exploitation of radio stations without interference.” However, because of “those radio stations that operate outside the legal system, it is very difficult for the SIT to guarantee freedom from interference, primarily for usufructuaries who hold legal licenses.” In the fourth place, it stated that the Court “order[ed] the State to adopt, within one year, the necessary measures to allow the victims to operate their community radio stations freely, until such time as effective legal mechanisms could be adopted to guarantee the indigenous communities of Guatemala access to the radio spectrum, and to allocate the corresponding frequencies.” 20. The State added that, if community radio stations were to be allowed “to operate freely, they need to meet certain minimum conditions to prevent any harm to people living near the area where the broadcasting equipment is placed. It is understood that operation requires special equipment that uses suitable safety measures.” 21. The representatives noted that the State seeks to present facts that have already been discussed by the Court in its judgment. It is also asking the Court to clarify how the victims are to freely operate their community radio stations and has expressed its concern about the right to usufruct of third parties. They maintained that those issues are inadmissible pursuant to the Court's Rules of Procedure. Finally, they argued that “according to international law, States have the duty to comply in good faith with international treaty obligations and may not invoke the provisions of their domestic law as justification for their failure to perform its treaty obligations.” 22. The Commission held that the request made for the Court to rule “on the decision as to where the spectrum for the frequency segment is to be located [...] does not constitute, per se, a request for interpretation related to the scope or meaning of the judgment.” To this end, it indicated that “it is the State’s duty” to comply with the judgment and that the Court could “make any further decisions as may be necessary in the stage of monitoring compliance [with judgment].” Moreover, the Commission noted that, during the development of the process, there had been no dispute over the segment of the authorized frequency. B.2 Considerations of the Court 23. Operative paragraph four of the judgment establishes that: 4. The State shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the Maya Kaqchikel indigenous peoples of Sumpango, the Achí of San Miguel Chicaj, the Mam of Cajolá and the Mam of Todos Santos Cuchumatán can freely operate their community radio stations, within one year, pursuant to paragraph 184 of [the] judgment. 24. In relation to the request made by the State concerning the location of the radio frequency, the Court recalls that the parties must consider the judgment as a whole and each 6