[J]udgment“ and that “the only next of kin of the victims not specified in Appendix 2 of the Judgment, to who the Tribunal grants the possibility to prove their condition within the 8 months following the notification of the Judgment[,…] are the inmates’ children that at that time were under the age of 18.” Likewise, it stated that “the purpose of paragraph 461,[ which orders medical and psychological treatment,] is to establish this reparation in favor of the next of kin declared as victims by the Tribunal in paragraphs 336, 337, and 340 and specified in ‘Appendix 2’; and of those identified by virtue of that stated in paragraph 433(d), within the term established for that effect.” The Commission added that “this subject is not a matter of interpretation of the judgment, because it does not respond to the need of precision of a text […] in what refers to that decided in its operative paragraphs [or] in what refers to the determination of the scope, sense, and purpose of its considerations.” Finally, it stated that “as long as there is evidence in the dossier that [Mr. Francisco Alcázar Miranda] in effect resulted with injuries as a consequence of the facts, it could be necessary to expressly state that he is a victim and beneficiary of […] reparations.” Arguments of the common intervener 60. The common intervener stated her disagreement with some observations of the representatives and expressed, among other considerations, that “the Judgment is clear with regard to the number of injured and uninjured parties, however, it left the possibility open for people not included in the list of the injured parties […] to prove [said] condition pursuant to the terms of the Judgment.” Arguments of the State 61. The State expressed that when issuing its Judgment, the Tribunal “considered it had enough evidentiary elements to specify the next of kin of the inmates entitled to a compensation for the violation of their right to humane treatment, in three situations[, established in paragraphs 336, 337, and 340 and 341 of the Judgment].” According to paragraph 433(d) of the Judgment only the last of the three situations, which refers to the next of kin of the inmates victims of solitary confinement and restriction of visits, may be extended to the inmates’ children that at the time of the facts were under the age of 18. It stated that “it considers that the next of kin referred to by the State are those included in Appendix 2 of the Judgment […] and eventually the children of the inmates verified in the term granted.” Besides, the State understands that the mentioned 8-month term “was granted to the victims so they may prove their residency outside of Peru and that they need medical and psychological treatment.” Finally, it mentioned that “the Court must clarify the exclusion of Francisco Alcázar Miranda as an injured party and beneficiary […] of the reparations.” Considerations of the Court 62. The Court considers that there are doubts that underlie the questions made by the representatives regarding the scope of that stated in the Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs and based on this it will proceed to interpret the judgment in the aspects requested. 18