37. Given the importance of the matters set forth in the present proceedings of the Interpretation of a Judgment, including the appellant State’s main concern, I requested in vain to the Court, through letters addressed to its Secretariat on 06.13.2007 and 12.04.2007, the holding of a hearing, because I had issues I wanted to present to the parties. The Court could have summoned it – it can do so “in any state of the case” and even in the stage of supervision of compliance of the Judgment, - to better conduct the proceedings. It did not do so, and its majority was pleased with a reasoning that, in my opinion, could be more elaborate and satisfactory. VI. Reason and Persuasion. 38. I allow myself to take up again the consideration of Aeschylus, in The Eumenides, in 458 a.C., regarding the need of prevalence of reason and persuasion of what if fair (cf. supra). In the works, Athena, upon announcing the creation “for all times” of the court of Areopagus, - the first permanent court of the old world, responsible for judging murders, - considered it necessary to explain the basic reasons for her decision. Athena did not exempt herself from the task of conviction, persuasion, and she considered: "As of this day and forever the people (...) will have the concern to maintain intact the regulations adopted in this Tribunal (...). (...) Reverence and fear (...) will avoid that citizens commit crimes, except if they prefer to annihilate the laws for their well-being (...). No oppression, no anarchy: this is the motto that citizens must follow and respect.30 (...) I hope it is not your intention to exacerbate rage in the heart of the citizens and in them create the thirst of homicides which insanely throws brothers against brothers until leading them to reciprocal extermination (...)."31 39. Currently, the same task of conviction and persuasion are reserved to the courts, to all courts, national and international. Besides the grounds for their judgments, they must make the parties see that the decision reached is pursuant to the applicable law. They may not, in my understanding, leave the doubts presented to them by the parties without clarification, at any time during the processing of the case, even in the form of requests, as in the present case of the Castro Castro Prison, of Interpretation of a Judgment. 40. Reason and persuasion of what is fair, the perennial leason of The Eumenides, is what they must expose, in benefit of the parties. These are not mere elements of the “operation of justice” (to use a “modern” or “post-modern” expression), but instead . Versos 904-907, 918-922, and 925-926. . Versos 1138-1143. 30 31 12