Considerations of the Court 46. The Court observes that, indeed, paragraph 334 of the Judgment indicates that 107 relatives of 16 of the 17 victims who were killed have received compensation under the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. Regarding the next of kin of the deceased victim, Luis Enrique Parada Ropero, footnote 462 to this paragraph of the Judgment indicates the following: “In the case of victim 17 [Luis Enrique Parada Ropero], according to the representatives, the young man Luis Enrique Parada Ropero was raised from an early age by Myriam Soreira Tulibila Macualo (merits file, tome 1, folio 240). However, she has received reparation for the death of her son, Oscar Esneider Vanegas Tulibila, and not for the death of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero. This means that she did not have recourse to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction in relation to the death of the youth Parada. In addition, according to the representatives, some members of the family of Luis Enrique Parada live in the state of Barinas in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and they listed the names of uncles […]; Isidro, Andres and Isaías Paradas, however, they do not appear as victims.”24 47. On this point, the Court notes that, as revealed by the facts of the case and the case file, the next of kin of Luis Enrique Parada Ropero did not have recourse to the Colombian contentious-administrative jurisdiction in order to claim the corresponding reparations. Accordingly, the Court must analyze the question posed by the representatives only with regard to Myriam Soreira Tulibila Macualo, who was identified as a victim in the case and, according to the representatives, was the surrogate mother of Mr. Parada Ropero who was declared a victim who died during the events of this case. In this regard, it is on record that Mrs. Tulibila Macualo had recourse to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction in relation to the death and injuries of her sons Oscar Esneider and Edwin Fernando Venegas Tulibila, but did not do so specifically for the death of Mr. Parada Ropero. During the proceedings, no information was provided that would confirm this relationship or explain why the surrogate mother of Mr. Parada Ropero did not file requests for reparation in relation to his death when she had recourse to the contentious administrative proceeding. 48. Thus, it is not for the Court to re-assess the decision of the domestic mechanisms or their suitability to establish adequate redress for the violations of the rights that were declared. This aspect of the request for interpretation is inadmissible, since accepting the interpretation proposed by the representatives would suppose modifying or expanding 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. 49. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to paragraph 338 of the Judgment, the determination made in paragraph 337 “does not affect the next of kin of victims who were not petitioners, who have not been represented in the proceedings before the Commission and the Court, and who have not been included as victims or injured parties in this Judgment, insofar as it does not preclude any actions that they may file at the domestic level.” The Court reiterates what it indicated previously, to the effect that it is not incumbent on it to determine which domestic provisions may be applicable or relevant, or to indicate which persons are entitled to have recourse to them. E. Sixth question: regarding the situation of the 18 victims who were not recognized as injured party who were not included in the Commission’s Merits Report, but who were considered in the mandates of the representatives 24 Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, footnote 462. 13