15 59. The Commission expressed that it “is unable to identify an issue in this section of the State’s communication that would constitute a valid request for interpretation.” On the contrary, “[t]he State appears to be presenting a challenge to the Court’s reasoning to declare a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, which would clearly fall outside the framework of such a request […]”. 60. The representatives argued that the Court’s Judgment is sufficiently clear in addressing the scope of Article 3 of the Convention in the context of the Saramaka people. However, the representatives considered that clarification “is therefore only needed to ensure that the State is certain about its obligations, particularly in relation to the legislative enactments required to give effect to the rights held by the Saramaka people”. This would “ensure that there are no further misunderstandings”. 61. The State’s request does not state with precision an issue relating to the meaning or scope of the Judgment, but rather seeks a modification of the Court’s reasoning regarding the right of the members of the Saramaka people to be recognized their juridical capacity to enjoy and exercise rights in a collective manner. In this sense, the Court may not address this issue as framed by the State, as this would constitute an impermissible appeal of the Judgment. Nonetheless, the Court deems pertinent to reiterate the following considerations found in the Judgment insofar as they provide guidance regarding the State’s obligations under Operative Paragraph 6, in which the Court orders the State to grant the members of the Saramaka people legal recognition of the collective juridical capacity, pertaining to the community to which they belong, with the purpose of ensuring the full exercise and enjoyment of their right to communal property, as well as collective access to justice, in accordance with their communal system, customary laws, and traditions. 62. The right of the members of the Saramaka people to the recognition of their juridical personality was addressed in the Judgment in paragraphs 159 through 175, and again in paragraphs 176 through 185 with regards to their right to judicial protection. In essence, the Court observed in paragraph 164 that “[…] the Saramaka people can be defined as a distinct tribal group […] whose members enjoy and exercise certain rights, such as the right to property, in a distinctly collective manner […].” 63. Furthermore, in paragraph 174, the Court declared that […] the members of the Saramaka people form a distinct tribal community in a situation of vulnerability, both as regards the State as well as private third parties, insofar as they lack the juridical capacity to collectively enjoy the right to property and to challenge before domestic courts alleged violations of such right. The Court considers that the State must recognize the juridical capacity of the members of the Saramaka people to fully exercise these rights in a collective manner. This may be achieved by implementing legislative or other measures that recognize and take into account the particular way in which the Saramaka people view themselves as a collectivity capable of exercising and enjoying the right to property. Thus, the State must establish, in consultation with the Saramaka people and fully respecting their traditions and customs, the judicial and administrative conditions necessary to ensure the recognition of their juridical personality, with the aim of guaranteeing them the use and enjoyment of their territory in accordance with their communal property system, as well as the rights to access to justice and equality before the law.29 29 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 24, para. 189.