DIFFERENT TO THE COMMON INTERVENER) Request for interpretation of the representatives 58. In their request for interpretation, the representatives stated their position with regard to the determination of the people considered victims in the Judgment indicating the following: a) in paragraph 433(d) the Judgment granted an 8-month term to the inmate’s children that at the time of the facts were under the age of eighteen so they could prove their condition of victims before the domestic authorities. The representatives requested that “[…] it be clarified if the 8-month term referred to in paragraph 433(d) of the judgment” extends also to the next of kin “that were not determined in appendix 2 of the Judgment,” so “they may prove before the competent authorities of the Peruvian state within an 8-month term that they comply with the suppositions established [in the Judgment in paragraphs] 336 [next of kin of the inmates that visited hospitals and morgues looking for them] and 340 [next of kin of the inmates victims of solitary confinement and visitation restrictions that were not children under the age of 18 of inmates] and therefore receive the corresponding reparations;” b) “there is doubt […] regarding which of the victims’ next of kin are specifically considered by the Court as beneficiaries of the medical and psychological treatment,” since 1) the Tribunal mentions that the beneficiaries of these measures are “victims and their next of kin”, without making reference to a specific group of victims, or limiting the category of the next of kin, or making reference to any appendix, and 2) the next of kin mentioned in appendix 2 of the Judgment were declared victims, reason for which “it does not seem that the treatment should be limited only to them since in that case it would have been enough for the Tribunal to grant it to the ‘victims’, ,instead of ‘victims and their next of kin’.” Therefore, the representatives requested it clarify that who should receive the medical and psychological treatment ordered are “all the next of kin of the deceased victims and survivors.” Finally, they ask the Court to clarify that the 8-month term to prove the condition of next of kin is applicable to all relatives, pursuant to that previously stated; and c) despite the fact that the injuries suffered and the condition of surviving inmate of Mr. Francisco Alcázar Miranda were proven, his name does not appear in appendix 2 of the Judgment; therefore, they requested that if be “clarified if the mentioned exclusion […] was due to a typographical error or an involuntary omission and that therefore he must be included […] in the list.” Arguments of the Commission 59. The Commission stated that the Judgment “clearly determined which of the next of kin were considered victims and were therefore named in Appendix 2 of the 17