provided that it serves the purpose of safeguarding the juridical good to be protected, this does not mean that the use of criminal proceedings to impose subsequent liabilities for the exercise of freedom of expression is necessary or proportional in all cases. In this regard, the Court has indicated that criminal law is the most restrictive and severe means to impose liabilities for unlawful behavior, particularly when the sanctions involve custodial sentences. Therefore, the use of the criminal law must respond to the principle of minimum intervention, due to its nature as an ultima ratio. In other words, in a democratic society, punitive power should only be exercised to the extent that it is strictly necessary to protect fundamental legal interests from the most serious attacks that damage or endanger them. Otherwise, it would lead to the abusive exercise of the punitive power of the State. 169. In this context, the criminal prosecution of the persons who operated the indigenous community radio stations, the raids on Radio Ixchel and Radio “La Voz del Pueblo” and the confiscation of their broadcasting equipment, are inappropriate and unnecessary. This is because the State could have used other less injurious means than those provided for in criminal law, such as administrative procedures and sanctions, which would achieve the same objective, but would affect the indigenous communities in a less onerous manner. 170. Finally, taking into account all the above points, this Court finds that the acts carried out by the State to the detriment of the Maya Kaqchikel and Maya Achí communities did not only derive from a situation of illegality indirectly created by the State itself, but also resulted in an absolute sacrifice of the right to freedom of expression of these peoples, for the purpose of ensuring the full enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression of those who allegedly suffered some interference in the transmission of their radio stations. Therefore, the Court considers that the criminal prosecution in question was disproportionate, since it excessively affected the freedom of expression and the right to participate in cultural life of the Maya Kaqchikel indigenous peoples of Sumpango and the Maya Achí of San Miguel Chicaj. 171. Accordingly, this Court considers that the raids and seizure of equipment of the Radio Ixchel and “La Voz del Pueblo” community radio stations, carried out on the basis of Guatemala’s domestic laws and through a court order, constituted illegitimate actions and restrictions of the right to freedom of expression, contrary to the Convention. 17. The Court reiterates that it considers it inadmissible to use a request for interpretation to submit considerations on factual and legal matters that have already been submitted at the proper procedural moment and on which the Court has already taken a decision.6 To this end, the Court notes that, in its judgment, it considered the content of the arguments raised by the State, specifically when it analyzed whether the raids on the radio stations and the criminal prosecution of their workers constituted a legitimate restriction of the victims’ right to freedom of expression, or instead, a restriction contrary to the American Convention. This is clear from the text cited above. Accordingly, the Court holds that the request submitted by the State does not meet the requirements for interpretation set forth in article 67 of the Convention, inasmuch as it does not address the meaning or scope of the judgment, but rather reflects the State’s disagreement with operative paragraph two and its queries regarding execution thereof. Therefore, the Court finds that the request for interpretation is inadmissible in this respect. B. Regarding operative paragraph four B.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 18. The State deems it “necessary” to request the interpretation of operative paragraph four of the judgment in view of the fact that the Court’s decision “did not expressly indicate [...] the location of the frequency segment used [by community radio stations]”, namely Amplitude Modulation or Frequency Modulation. It further pointed out that such segment Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra, para. 15, and Case of Casa Nina v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 6 5