2 I INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 1. On July 1, 2009, the Court issued the Judgment, which was notified to the parties on August 5, 2009. 2. On November 3, 2009, the State submitted a request for interpretation of the Judgment, in accordance with Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. The State requested the Court to interpret Operative Paragraph Five of the Judgment and, specifically, to clarify whether the reimbursement of costs and expenses ordered “should be paid to the legal person called the [‘]Association of Discharged and Retired Employees[’] or [to] the natural persons that have been declared victims [in] the [J]udgment[.] [In] the latter case, [the State asked the Court] to indicate the appropriate form of payment.” 3. On November 6, 2009, in accordance with Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) transmitted a copy of the request for interpretation to the representative of the victims (hereinafter “the representative) and the Inter-American Commission (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”). Likewise, the Secretariat informed the parties that “given the nature and tenor of the request for interpretation,” the representative and the Commission could submit the written arguments they deemed pertinent until November 16, 2009. 4. On November 16, 2009, the representative submitted his written allegations and asked the Tribunal, “despite that there is no contradiction in the order of the […] Court,” to “[c]larify” the orders contained in paragraphs 150 and 151 of the Judgment with respect to the reimbursement of costs and expenses, to which Operative Paragraph Five of the Judgment refers. According to the representative, “[the Judgment] orders that ‘the State pay to the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees […] – of which the victims form a part as members – the sum indicated in paragraph 150 of the [Judgment]. In turn, the victims shall pay, through the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees, the amount they deem appropriate to those who represented them at the domestic level and in proceedings before the Inter-American System.” 5. On November 20, 2009, the Commission submitted its written arguments and observed that, “in effect, paragraphs 150 and 151 of the Judgment could provide for different interpretations.” Therefore, it “considered relevant that the […] Court clarify this issue in the corresponding interpretation judgment, so that the State may proceed to make the payments [for reimbursement of costs and expenses].” II COMPETENCE AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 6. Article 67 of the Convention establishes that: [T]he 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.