Hilda Yuraime Barranco; Ricardo Ramírez; Yeimi Viviana Contreras; Maryori Agudelo Flórez; Rosmira Daza Rojas; Neftalí Neite González and Lida Barranca.”20 37. In the Judgment, the group composed of the 27 injured victims coincides with the 27 displaced victims. As already indicated (supra paras. 18 and 19), in paragraph 337 of the Judgment, the Court established that the injured victims could have recourse to a domestic reparation mechanism for the pertinent compensation and indemnities to be established for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, if applicable, which should be calculated based on the objective, reasonable and effective criteria of the Colombian contentious-administrative jurisdiction. However, despite the correlation between the identity of the two groups of victims (injured and displaced), paragraph 337 of the Judgment refers to the injured persons indicated in paragraph 335 thereof, according to which 11 of these 27 victims had received compensation under the Colombian contentious-administrative jurisdiction (some of whom also received compensation as family members of those who died21); two of those victims who had recourse to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction were not compensated,22 and there is no record of whether the remaining 14 injured victims had recourse to this jurisdiction.23 38. Thus, paragraph 337 establishes the possibility for the injured victims “who did not have recourse to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction at the domestic level,” to request the pertinent compensation and indemnities, if appropriate, only for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from having been injured in the facts of the case and not based on their condition of having been displaced. 39. Consequently, the Court observes that an affirmative answer to the representative’s question would suppose the modification or expansion of the decision taken in the Judgment, and this is not possible pursuant to Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Therefore, this aspect of the request for interpretation is inadmissible. 40. The representatives also posed a second question relating to other persons who underwent displacement and who were not identified in the proceedings or declared victims or injured party in the Judgment. In this regard, the Court found, as indicated in paragraphs 265 and 266 of the Judgment, that many other inhabitants of Santo Domingo were affected by the displacement and that the failure to identify all these persons was due, in part, to the circumstances in which the facts of the case occurred and to the profound fear they felt, which made it impossible to know with certainty how many people were displaced, in 20 Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, paras. 265 to 268. 21 Namely: Edwin Fernando Vanegas Tulibila (brother of Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulibila), Milciades Bonilla Ostos (permanent companion of Nancy Ávila Abaunza), Mario Galvis Gelves (husband of Teresa Mojica Hernández), Mónica Bello Tilano (mother of Egna Margarita Bello Tilano and sister of Katherine Cárdenas Tilano), Amalio Neite González (son of Salomón Neite), Marcos Aurelio Neite Méndez (brother of Luis Carlos Neite Méndez), Erinson Olimpo Cárdenas Tilano (brother of Katherine Cárdenas Tilano) and Neftalí Neite González (son of Salomón Neite). 22 These were: María Cenobia Panqueva and Neftalí Neite González. In the case of the former, it was not determined that she was unable to work and in that of the latter, the medical record was not provided so that it was not possible to determine that he was unable to work. See judgment of the Contentious-Administrative Court of Arauca, Mario Galvis Gelvez et al., Case file No. 81-001-23-200-348, May 20, 2004 (evidence file, tome 20, folio 10253); Judgment of the Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No. 07001-23-31-0002000-0348-01, December 13, 2007 (evidence file, tome 2, folio 783), and Judgment of the Third Section, Council of State, Mario Galvis Gelves et al., case file No. 07001-23-31-000-2000-0348-01, November 19, 2008 (evidence file, tome 3, folios 1081 and 1082). 23 The State referred only to the sisters Maribel Daza Rojas and Rusmira Daza Rojas, as injured victims who had not had recourse to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. 11