Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador Judgment of November 26, 2008 (Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs) In the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court,” “the Court,” or “the Tribunal”), composed of the following judges: Sergio García Ramírez, President; Cecilia Medina Quiroga, Vice-President; Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge; Diego García-Sayán, Judge; Leonardo A. Franco, Judge; Margarette May Macaulay, Judge, and Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge; also present, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary,1 pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Article 59 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), decides on the request of interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs issued by the Court on November 21, 2007 in the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador (hereinafter “the request for interpretation”), presented by the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”). I Presentation of the request for interpretation and proceedings before the court 1. On January 18, 2008 the State presented a request for interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs issued in this case on November 21, 20072 (hereinafter “the Judgment”), based on Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. In its request the State referred to the reparation measure that orders the establishment of an “arbitration tribunal” for the determination of the “percentage of loss that Mr. Chaparro suffered as a result of the 1 The Deputy Secretary, Emilia Segares Rodríguez, did not participate in the deliberation of this Judgment for reasons of force majeure. 2 Cfr. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170.