12 d) regard, save for the processes of demonstrating identity, the Commission deemed “that it would not be pertinent, for example, to demand additional evidence under domestic venue from those who have been explicitly found by the Inter-American Court to be victims or beneficiaries of the reparations ordered,” and regarding to whether the obligation set forth in the Judgment has been fulfilled when one of the beneficiaries has been granted housing by a government program, the Commission stated that this “is not a matter for interpretation of the Judgment,” as it is not in accordance with a need for “precision of a text, [...] regarding what was decided in one of its operative paragraphs [or] regarding establishment of the scope, the meaning, or the purpose of its considerations.” If the Court were to address this matter, “it would have to offer an abstract opinion that might affect the process of compliance in this case or in others, without having taken into account all the necessary facts.” It also pointed out that “the exercise of answering generic or abstract queries is more appropriate for the advisory role than the adjudicatory jurisprudence.” Therefore, for the Court to address this type of situations “it is indispensable that the query be placed in the context of concrete situations, in which both the State and the person possibly affected may submit their viewpoints to the Court.” Therefore, the Commission deemed “that this type of query should be addressed as part of the process of compliance with the judgment.” Pleadings of the representatives 38. Regarding to the aforementioned request made representatives stated, in connection with this matter, that: a) b) c) by the State, the establishment of the scope of the measure of reparation ordered by the Court and its meaning as such for the next of kin of the victims makes it necessary to consider the circumstances, the gravity, and the nature of the facts heard by the Court; the scope of the measure of reparation mentioned by the State must be interpreted on the basis of the jurisprudence invoked by the Court itself to provide support for its decision, specifically the provisions of the case of the “Plan de Sánchez” Massacre vs. Guatemala; the housing program must respect the current family groups, that is, each next of kin who was displaced has the right to a house. The next of kin who live together (for example, the parents of the victim) will receive a single house, while the others (brothers or sons who have left the home and established their own families) will receive their own houses. In this regard, the representatives stated that “[i]t is not realistic to expect that all the members of a family group, plus their spouses and children (which in some families amounts to 50 or more individuals) could live in a single house, bearing in mind the obligation to ‘provide adequate space’.” Furthermore, many of the next of kin of the victims, at the time of the facts, did not necessarily live in the same house as the victims, because they had different though nearby dwellings. In other words, it must be understood that “the measure of reparation ordered by the Court must apply to each family group of each of the next of kin of the victims identified in the Judgment and