addition to the fact that they were not individualized by the Commission or by the representatives during the proceedings. 41. The victims of forced displacement and their next of kin, both those who were declared as such in the Judgment and those who were not identified during the proceedings, or declared victims or injured party, could effectively be beneficiaries of other measures that it would correspond to the State to adopt at the domestic level, within the framework of its own laws and institutions, in favor of displaced persons (as indicated in paragraph 266). According to paragraph 338 of the Judgment, the decisions taken in the Judgment do not preclude the possibility for such victims filing “any actions [that might be pertinent] at the domestic level” in relation to these events and to their situation of displacement. 42. Nevertheless, it is not for this Court to determine the applicable or relevant domestic provisions, or to indicate which persons are entitled to have recourse to them. Paragraph 338 merely established that, should these persons have a right to file some type of action at the domestic level to obtain compensation or a benefit, the Judgment can in no way constitute an obstacle for such proceedings to be used effectively. Therefore, the request for interpretation is also inadmissible as regards this question. D. Fifth question: “Does the Judgment enable the next of kin of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero – who have not received compensation – to have recourse to the mechanism under Law 288 of 1996 or the mechanism that the Court refers to in paragraph 337 of its Judgment? Arguments of the representatives and observations of the State 43. The representatives indicated that the Court had been able to corroborate that the relatives of 16 of the 17 victims who were killed had received compensation at the domestic level, but that doubt subsists regarding the next of kin of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero (victim 6 – Annex I), to whom the Court referred tacitly in paragraph 338, indicating that it did not preclude any actions that could be filed at the domestic level. The representatives pointed out that the action for direct reparation established in the domestic sphere in the Contentious-Administrative Code expires after two years, and therefore asked the Court to clarify whether the Judgment would authorize the next of kin of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero – who have not received compensation – to have recourse to the mechanism under Law 288 of 1996 or the mechanism that the Court refers to in paragraph 337 of its Judgment. 44. The Commission did not present specific observations on this point. 45. The State indicated that the next of kin of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero were not included in the Commission’s report under Article 50, even though it acknowledged that the “representatives’ mandate” had been accredited. Similarly, it reiterated its arguments regarding the universe of victims that would be included under the mechanism of paragraph 337, indicating, in particular, that this cannot be extended to those who are not included in the group contemplated by the Court in the text of its decision, so that a different assessment would blatantly contravene the provisions of Article 67 of the Convention. Second, regarding the possibility of access to the mechanism of Law 288 of 1996, the State indicated that “[t]he members of the groups in question do not comply with the requirements established in this law, because they were not individualized in the report under Article 50. Therefore, no decision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights exists in their regard that would authorize them to have recourse to this mechanism.” 12