massacres occurred in nearby or adjoining places to the sites that the Court declared as placed affected in paragraph 57 of the Judgment, provided that the State understands this to be so, in accordance with its acknowledgements of responsibility. 37. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that, during the proceedings on merits before the Court, the State acknowledged, consistently, that the facts of the massacre were perpetrated in other places, among which it also mentioned the village of El Pinalito and the town of Arambala. 23 Moreover, in its arguments on the reparations, it indicated that the said Single List of Victims “will provide the basis to identify not only the persons but also the geographical areas and the population towards which many of the measures of a social nature will be directed.” 24 Similarly, in the context of the request for interpretation of the Judgment, the State has reiterated this position and recognized as places affected by the facts of this case the town of Arambala, the village of El Pinalito and the cantons of Tierra Colorada and Guacamaya, while indicating its willingness to consider as victims those persons who may be individualized and who were victims of violations of their human rights in those places (supra para. 15). 38. If a dispute arises between the parties regarding the way in which the State should implement this measure, the Court considers, as it has previously, 25 that satisfactory implementation of the measures of reparation will be evaluated during the stage of monitoring compliance with the Judgment. Therefore, the Court will assess any information and observations that the parties may present in this regard at that stage. V APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 76 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE 39. Based on the information provided by the representatives and the State, and in application of Article 76 of its Rules of Procedure, 26 the Court proceeds, on its own motion, to rectify the error of the expression “departmental capital of Arambala” used in paragraph 56 of the Judgment, for the correct expression of “town (urban area) of Arambala.” Also, for the purpose of the eventual publication and dissemination of the Judgment, the Court orders that an amended version of the Judgment with the pertinent rectification be forwarded to the parties and the Commission. VI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 23 Cf. Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, paras. 19, 20 and 57. 24 Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 309. 25 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Interpretation of the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 199, para. 26, and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, para. 27. 26 Article 76. Rectification of errors in judgments and other decisions: “The Court may, on its own motion or at the request of any of the parties to the case, within one month of the notice of the judgment or order, rectify obvious mistakes, clerical errors, or errors in calculation. The Commission, the victims or their representatives, the respondent State, and, if applicable, the petitioning State shall be notified if an error is rectified.” The Court recalls that, although, based on Article 76 of the Rules, the parties may request a correction of obvious mistakes, clerical errors, or errors in calculation "within one month of the notice of the judgment or order in question" that period does not apply to any corrections that might make the Court motu proprio. Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of May 17, 2010, fifteenth considering paragraph. 13