State argues that it makes this consultation in order “not to send ambiguous, or wrong, messages to the totality of the population in the sense of tolerating, backing, or vindicate people committed with Sendero Luminoso or even do so in favor of said group, characterized by its terrorist methods and practices […].” 52. The Court considers it pertinent to state that the meaning of this measure of reparation is to inform of the truth of the facts that were examined by the Tribunal in the present case in order to avoid their repetition in the future; facts for which the State acknowledged its international responsibility in its response to the application, in the public hearing, and in the brief of final arguments. The considerations related with the compliance of this reparation measure, its modality and how to reach the objective sought by the same, may be submitted to the Court’s consideration by the State in the process of supervision of compliance of the Judgment and be assessed by the Tribunal in said proceeding. * * * Compensations 53. With regard to that argued by the State on the possibility that the creditors, third parties, and the State itself present a legal action against any of the beneficiaries of the economic reparations for previous debts they may have (supra para. 30(b)), first of all the Tribunal recalls that in its Judgment it ordered, as it has done invariably, that the amounts assigned as compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses not be affected or conditioned by tax reasons. This constitutes a supposition of fact different to the question presented by the State. In this sense, the Court observes that the possible debts the people that accessed to the Inter-American system may have within their domestic legislation and the legal actions their private creditors, whether private or public, may present against them are matters foreign to the international process before this Tribunal that the State must solve pursuant to its domestic law. 54. In reference to that requested by the State with regard to the modality of compliance of the economic reparations (supra para 30(a)), the Tribunal warns that in said aspect of the request for interpretation it is not asked to clarify the sense or precise the scope of said part of the Judgment, but instead it is asked to revise and modify what was established and ordered in that decision. The State itself expressed its claim of modification upon indicating that “[…] the cornerstone of [its] argument […], respectfully seeks a change in the modality of compliance of some of the operative paragraphs […].” (emphasis added). The Court lacks the power to solve said aspect of the request for interpretation, since Articles 67 of the Convention, 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure do not permit it. The Tribunal will consider the matters related with this reparation measure that may be the object of the procedure of supervision of compliance with the Judgment in a timely manner. * 15