3 7. On December 14, 1999, the Inter-American Commission submitted its written arguments on the request for interpretation. 8. On January 10, 2000, the State presented a brief dated January 6, 2000, in which it requested the Court “if it saw fit, to direct that [the] hearing should be suspended”, because: 1) Gustavo Cesti Hurtado now enjoys unrestricted liberty[;] 2) The prohibition to leave the country in effect against the said Mr. Cesti has been lifted[;] 3) The Peruvian Government is devoting itself to studying friendly settlements aimed at concluding all the proceedings relating to human rights. and requested a “prudent lapse to allow [it] to fine tune the arrangements to be made in order to achieve this end.” 9. On January 17, 2000, the President issued an order in which he decided to proceed with the public hearing to be held on January 25, 2000. 10. On January 25, 2000, a public hearing was held on the request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits at the seat of the Court. There appeared for the State of Peru: Rolando Eyzaguirre, Deputy Agent, and Alberto Cortez, Advisor for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Christina Cerna, Lawyer, and Alberto Borea Odría, Advisor. IV OBJECT OF THE REQUEST 11. In the request for interpretation, the State asked the Court to clarify some matters related to the “meaning and the scope” of the judgment on merits. In the following chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the different points that are the object of the request for interpretation. V ADMISSIBILITY 12. As a prerequisite for the admissibility of the request for interpretation of judgment, Article 67 of the Convention requires that this request be made “within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” The Court has confirmed that the judgment on the merits in the instant case was notified to the State on October 4, 1999. Therefore, the request for interpretation was submitted within the specified time limit (supra 2), as were the Commission’s arguments.