7 The argument of El Salvador that the compensation is not in accordance with the damages caused, constitutes a direct challenge to the contents and scope of the Judgment, contrary to the conventional meaning of the Judgment interpretation figure. The State is not expressing a doubt but rather a disagreement with respect to the amounts fixed and seeks their amendment through a “hidden appeal”. 19. Arguments of the representatives a) They request to the Court to “dismiss the request for interpretation filed by the State[,] on the grounds that it seeks to repeal, in an inappropriate and hidden fashion, the Judgment entered by the Court; and b) in addition, the State “submitted its arguments in an attempt to be released from its responsibility with regards to the violation of the rights established in articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention”. The State had the opportunity to prove that it had not incurred on international responsibility. Notwithstanding, the Court reached a conclusion contrary to that expressed by the State. The Tribunal’s reasoning regarding the domestic judicial investigation is “quite clear and broad”. Remarks of the Court 20. The Court verified that the third aspect referred to in the request for interpretation, regarding the “reasons that led the [] Honorable Court to establish the amounts the State must pay as compensation”, does not seek that the Court interprets the meaning or scope of the Judgment, but rather that the State consider that the aforementioned amounts “are not in accordance with the alleged damages caused”, as previously expressed, and that therefore it is using the request for interpretation as a way to challenge the Judgment and claim that the Court amend the amounts established as compensation for damages caused as a consequence of the violations stated in the Judgment. 21. In addition, the State is submitting arguments on the proceedings carried out at the First Instance Court of Chalatenango related to the investigation of the whereabouts of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, that are connected to the violation of articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention (supra para. 17(b)) declared by the Court. With this, the State is submitting factual and legal issues to the consideration of the Court that had been previously decided upon by the Tribunal in relation to the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs (supra para. 1). 22. Regarding this, paragraphs from 133 to 137, 142 to 145, 152 and 156 to 160, of the Judgment, clearly establish the grounds on which the Court entered the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs for pecuniary and non pecuniary damages caused as a result of the violation to articles 8(1), 25 and 5 of the Convention, in relation to article 1(1) of the same instrument, and on which it fixed the corresponding equal amounts. In addition, paragraphs 54 to 107 and 112 to 115 of the previously mentioned judgment also duly reason the violations to the norms of the Convention as declared by the Court. 23. Due to the foregoing considerations, the Court decides to dismiss the request for interpretation regarding the third aspect put forward, “the reasons that led the []