2 a) Request for interpretation submitted by the State 2. In its request the State asked the Court to interpret the scope of the form of reparation ordered by the Inter-American Court in paragraphs 275 and 276 of the Judgment, “to implement, as it has done in other cases, a program to provide adequate housing to the next of kin who return to Pueblo Bello”. It also requested clarification of paragraph 240 subparagraph a) of said Judgment regarding distribution of compensation among the wives or common-law spouses of the missing persons and those who lost their lives. b) Request for interpretation submitted by the representatives 3. In their request for interpretation the representatives raised several doubts regarding establishment of the beneficiaries of the compensations ordered in the Judgment, in accordance with the criteria set forth by the Court in paragraphs 233 to 241 of said Judgment. Specifically, the representatives deemed that said criteria were not taken into account regarding to certain persons who were not included by the Court in Appendix II of the Judgment as next of kin of the victims, despite the fact that they allegedly proved “in a timely manner and with suitable documents [...] their kinship [...] and fulfillment of the requirements of the Court to be considered beneficiaries of the compensations.” Thus, they asked that the ruling on interpretation state that the persons listed in the request brief are beneficiaries of the compensations under the same conditions as those listed in the Judgment, and they also asked that the names of two next of kin included in said Appendix be corrected. II COMPETENCE AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT 4. 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. 5. Pursuant to said Article, the Court is competent to interpret its rulings. In its examination of the request for interpretation, the Court will insofar as possible have the same composition it had when it issued the respective Judgment (Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). On this occasion, the Court is composed of the same Judges1 who issued the Judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs, which it has been asked to interpret. III PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT 1 With the exception of Judge Oliver Jackman, who for reasons of force majeure did not participate, as mentioned before.