17 * * 69. In turn, in one of the requests for interpretation, the inclusion of individuals as victims in the case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. in relation to a domestic judgment issued on March 30, 2004 (supra para. 30.c) was requested. The Court points out that said domestic judgment has not been considered in the international proceedings before the Commission and the Court in the instant case, because the application was filed by the Commission on July 25, 2003, that is to say, prior to the date of said domestic judgment. Therefore, the Court will not consider said request. VI TERMS TO MAKE PAYMENT OF NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES AND REIMBURSE COSTS AND EXPENSES Questions and requests asserted in the requests for interpretation 70. In the applications filed on May 29, 2006 (supra para. 3), Manuel SaavedraRivera and Héctor Paredes-Márquez requested the Court to "clarify and specify the scope of the provisions of the Judgment” regarding to: a) Whether payment of non pecuniary damages amounting to US$3,000 to each beneficiary and reimbursement of costs and expenses amounting to US$16,000 will be made after 12 and 15 months respectively, as from service of the Judgment; and b) “The provisions of Law No. 27,775 governing the enforcement of judgments issued by supranational courts, […] which order payment of monies due within the term of 10 days a from service of the Judgment." They noted that “the State intends to pay the amounts due after the expiration of the terms established by the Court.” Arguments of the Inter-American Commission 71. The Commission argued that: a) The Judgment of the Court is clear when it orders that the State must pay the amounts due within 15 and 12 months, as stated in operative paragraphs 12 and 13 therein. Owing to the fact that the Judgment was notified on March 1, 2006, said terms expire on June 1 and March 1, 2007, respectively. However, the victims in the instant case have waited six to eight years to obtain reparation, and they are confident that the State will comply with the obligations declared by the Court as soon as practicable. b) It is beyond question that, in judgment interpretation proceedings, the Court must not abide by a domestic piece of legislation, such as Law No. 27,775. 72. The common intervener for the representatives of the alleged victims did not refer to this issue. Arguments by the State