I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On September 28, 2021, the Inter-American Court issued the judgment in this case, of which the parties and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also "the Commission") were notified on December 10 of the same year. 2. On March 8, 2022, the State submitted a request for interpretation regarding paragraph 206 of the judgment, specifically with respect to the Court’s ruling that it was necessary for the State “to adapt its domestic legal system to the provisions of the American Convention, with regard to the reinstatement of non-ratified judges to the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service and to the possibility of appealing decisions determining the nonratification of a judge; and, while the measures are not adopted . . . to exercise ex officio conventionality control between domestic law and the American Convention.” 3. On March 22, 2022, pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and on the instructions of the President of the Court, the Court’s Secretariat forwarded the request for interpretation to the representatives of the victims (hereinafter “the representatives”)1 and the Commission, and gave them until April 22, 2022, to submit any written observations they deemed pertinent. On April 21 and 22, 2022, the representatives and the Commission submitted their respective observations. One of the representatives attached a number of annexes to the observations. II JURISDICTION 4. Article 67 of the American Convention establishes: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 5. Pursuant to this article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its judgments. According to Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, when examining requests for interpretation and making its decisions, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the judges who delivered the original judgment. On this occasion, Court is made up of a majority of the same judges that delivered the judgment whose interpretation is being sought. III ADMISSIBILITY 6. It is the responsibility of the Court to verify whether the request submitted by the State meets the requirements established in the rules applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely, Article 67 of the Convention and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, as cited above. Furthermore, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 1 Mariano Patricio Maciel and Leonardo Cardoso de Magalhães are the representatives of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy. Rivana Barreto Ricarte de Olivieira and Hugo Cesar Gimenez Ruiz Díaz are the representatives of Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. Enrique Tazza Chaupis is the representative of Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse. 2