I REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On October 6, 2021, the Court issued a judgment on this case, and so notified the parties and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the InterAmerican Commission” or “the Commission”) on December 17 of the same year. 2. On March 17, 2022, the State submitted a request for interpretation related to the scope of operative paragraphs two, four, six, seven and eight of the judgment. 3. On March 29, 2022, pursuant to Article 68(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Court Registrar sent the request for interpretation to the victims’ representatives (hereinafter, the “representatives”)1 and the Commission and gave them until April 28, 2022, to present in writing any observations they considered relevant. On April 28, 2022, the representatives and the Commission forwarded their respective observations. II JURISDICTION 4. Article 67 of the American Convention establishes: The judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 5. Pursuant to this article, the Inter-American Court is competent to interpret its judgment. According to Article 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, when considering and deciding on a request for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same Judges who delivered the original judgment. On this occasion, the Court majority is made up Judges who delivered the judgment whose interpretation has been requested by the State. III ADMISSIBILITY 6. It is the Court's task to verify whether the request filed by the State meets the requirements established in the norms applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely, Article 67 of the Convention as cited above, and Article 68 of the Rules of procedure. Likewise, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 7. The Court notes that the parties were notified of the judgment on December 17, 2021, and the State presented its request for interpretation on March 17, 2022, within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention. Therefore, the request is admissible as regards its timeliness. Regarding the other requirements, the Court will analyze the merits in the following chapter. The victims’ representatives are the Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples Clinic of Suffolk University Law School, Nicole Friederichs, attorney and director of the Clinic; Cultural Survival, Inc., Sobrevivencia Cultural; the Asociación Mujb'ab'l Yol; and attorney Cristian Otzín Poyón, of the Nim Ajpu Association of Maya Attorneys and Public Attestors of Guatemala. 1 2