5 a friendly settlement[,] and considers that, even though the applicants have possession of their certificates, they will have to comply with the legal formalities [...] to acquire the birth certificates as prescribed by law”; and f) “the [J]udgment does not bar the competent authorities from adopting decisions concerning the liability of persons for the wrongful acts attributed to them.” Argument by the Commission 18. The Commission stated, inter alia, that: a) the request for interpretation filed by the State does not comply with the requisite formalities to be properly deemed as a request for interpretation and that it should therefore be dismissed, inasmuch as the State “the State does not seek for [the Court] to interpret the meaning and scope of its judgment pursuant to […] the Convention and […] the Rules of Procedure but, instead, it pursues a review and a reconsideration of the final [J]udgment not subject to appeal entered by the Court, since it takes issue with the content thereof […]”; and b) the State’s assertion that it deems itself to have performed its duty to extend the certificates runs counter to the Judgment, and represents a menace to the binding effect of the Court’s decisions and to its authority. The State seeks to alter the Court’s Judgment, ignore the reparations, and establish an additional burden upon the victims by imposing requirements for them to enjoy a right that is lawfully theirs. Therefore, even though the Commission will address the compliance with the Judgment in the appropriate opportunity, it deems it fit to follow up on the compliance with the reparations challenged by the State. Argument by the representatives 19. The representatives argued, inter alia, that: a) the Court must dismiss the State’s motion because it does not constitute a request for interpretation, inasmuch as “rather than requesting that the meaning or the scope of the provisions set forth in the InterAmerican Court’s Judgment, […] the State has sought to challenge and ‘alter ... aspects [of the Judgment] that are binding'". The foregoing is so because the State's pleading "only deals with issues of fact and of law that have already been addressed by the Court’s final judgment”; b) the State’s pleading is part of a government strategy aimed at delegitimizing the Court’s Judgment and avoid compliance therewith; and c) the State threatens to adopt measures in retaliation against the victims and their relatives. Firstly, to “revoke the girls’ birth certificates”, drawing a distinction between “granting” and “recognizing” Yean and Bosico’s right to nationality, based on an erroneous account of the facts. This is invalid under the estoppel doctrine embodied in Inter-American law. Secondly, to “prosecute the victims and their next of kin” for actively participating in the