12 not incumbent on the Court, under its competence as an international human rights court, to prosecute or convict individuals. What is striking about the State’s argument is that it suggests that the Court, in its task of determining the State’s international responsibility by verifying that the violations were the consequence of the acts of State agents, has violated the principles established in the Convention, the treaty that the Court applies and interprets, and compliance with which it monitors by means of its case law. Moreover, the Court ordered that the competent national authorities determine the individual criminal responsibilities, and it will be in the context of these investigations that the State must ensure compliance with the judicial guarantees referred to in its brief. d) Interpretation of “act committed by military personnel”–military jurisdiction 35. Lastly, in section “(a) Object of the interpretation” of the request for interpretation, Mexico asked the Court to confirm whether the reference to the “act committed by military personnel against Mrs. Rosendo Cantú,” in paragraph 161 of the judgment, “is restricted to the assessment made by the Court […] regarding the intervention of the military justice system in the investigation into the facts and, therefore, does not constitute prejudgment with regard to the alleged perpetrators of the violations described in that paragraph.” 36. The contested paragraph is sufficiently clear. The Court notes that the purpose of the question posed by the State in its request for interpretation is not to clarify or define more accurately the content of any operative paragraph of the judgment, nor to determine the meaning of the judgment due to a lack of sufficient clarity or precision in its operative paragraphs or in its considerations. The interpretation of this fragment that Mexico is requesting does not derive from the literal meaning of what was indicated in that paragraph or in any other part of the judgment, and cannot be sustained logically. The fragment questioned by the State makes clear that a rape committed by military personnel bears no relationship to the military mission or discipline and, consequently, its investigation is excluded from the competence of military courts. VI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 37. Therefore, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3) and 68 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, DECIDES: Unanimously: Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 119 to 121, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 205.