4 15. In addition, the Court has held that the request for interpretation of a judgment may not involve raising issues of fact or of law already asserted at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and upon which the Court has entered a decision.2 16. In order to assess the admissibility of the request for interpretation and, if appropriate, clarify the meaning and scope of the Judgment delivered by the Court on September 8, 2005, the Court will now analyze the State’s arguments. V ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION Arguments of the State 17. The State argued, inter alia, that: a) the place of birth of the girl Violeta Bosico must still be established, inasmuch as the State "completely disagrees with [the Court's] finding, since it has been established that [the] Charcas house and the Sabana Grande de Boyá hospital are located in the Dominican Republic”; b) there are doubts as to whether the girl Dilcia Yean is the daughter of Leonidas Oliven-Yean; c) the girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico were never stateless, since their grandparents' Haitian nationality has been established and the Haitian Constitution provides that "every Haitian born to a Haitian father or mother is a Haitian national [...]" and, under the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons a stateless person is “a person who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law”; d) it purports to know “the content and scope of the liability arising from the acts of the officers who took part in the case [...] in the understanding that the reduction of or exemption from liability of Thelma Bienvenida Reyes and Dr. Julio César Castro, officers whose acts have been proved to the State] will result in the reduction of or exemption from the State’s liability”. Likewise, the State alleged that the acts of these officers conformed to the law, and thus "[their] conduct cannot be reproached, and so the State [...] is completely innocent of the charges brought against it for the acts of such officers"; e) “it did not recognize anything; instead, it extended the birth certificates based on a friendly settlement rather than on the recognition of a preexisting right." Therefore, since the Court held in the Judgment that the parties failed to reach a friendly settlement, the State asserted that "it deems itself to have performed its duty to extend the birth certificates [arising from] Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 15; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 16; and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 16. 2