Castro prison touched the entire Peruvian society.” Finally, the common intervener concluded that the State’s request does not adjust to the terms of Article 67 of the Convention, since its purpose is to change operative paragraphs of the Judgment. Arguments of the representatives 35. The representatives stated that the requests made by Peru are inadmissible, among other reasons, because the “interpretations and clarifications requested by the State go beyond the interpretation [of the Judgment] and even modify the sense and scope [of the same].” Likewise, the representatives argued that “to be or not in favor of the PCP does not have any effect on [the] fundamental rights” of the “defenseless inmates that were attacked and massacred by a repressive government.” With regard to the act of acknowledgment of responsibility they stated that the State’s request “denatures that ordered by the Court” and will be translated into a “stigmatization” of all the victims “[as] terrorists, even without the existence of a single piece of evidence against them.” According to the representatives the request presented by the State in relation with the broadcast on radio and television, “would have the consequence of minimizing the effectiveness of the measure.” Finally, regarding the pecuniary reparation the representatives stated that all the victims and their next of kin “have the same right as any other citizen to receive compensations when their human rights are violated.” Considerations of the Court 36. The Court observes that the State on several opportunities expressed that its request for an interpretation of the Judgment does not seek in any way to change the content and substance of the same and that at all times “[…] it acknowledges the facts that led to the punishment of the Peruvian State due to grave violations of human rights with the facts occurred in May 1992 and during the following months […].” 37. However, the Tribunal observes that in certain questions made by the State there are underlying doubts regarding the scope of that stated in the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs, and based on this it will proceed to make the necessary considerations regarding certain aspects of the request for interpretation. * * * Two paragraphs of the proven facts of the Judgment 38. The Court considers it appropriate to refer to that mentioned by the State in its request for interpretation with regard to two paragraphs of Chapter VIII, Proven Facts of the Judgment (supra para. 28). The first aspect mentioned by the State appears in paragraph 197(1) of the section on “Background and juridical context,” while paragraph 197(5) is located in the section of the Judgment that refers to “The Commission for Truth and Reconciliation”. First of all in this sense it is necessary to 11