American Commission on the request for interpretation of the judgment and recalls that the
State did not present arguments or observations.
13.
In order to analyze the admissibility of the representatives’ request, the Court takes
into account its consistent case law, supported by the above-mentioned applicable norms,
to the effect that a request for interpretation of judgment should not be used as a means of
contesting the decisions whose interpretation is requested. The purpose of this request is
exclusively to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties affirms that
the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided
that those considerations have an impact on the said operative paragraphs. 5 Consequently,
the respective judgment cannot be modified or annulled by means of a request for
interpretation.6
14.
Furthermore, the Court has established that the request for interpretation cannot be
used to submit factual or legal questions that were already raised at the appropriate
procedural opportunity and regarding which the Court has already taken a decision.7
15.
The Court notes that the representatives’ request refers to the determination of the
victims made by the Court in its judgment, because it seeks the exclusion of three of the
539 victims. The Court will analyze this aspect first. In addition, the Court will include some
additional considerations, because the representatives’ request includes assertions
concerning the award of reparations to the said three victims (infra paras. 24 and 25).
16.
In their communication, the representatives indicated that “having studied the list of
the 539 […] victims included in the judgment delivered on October 13, 2011, [they] h[ad]
detected that [three] persons should not be included on it, or be beneficiaries of the
corresponding rights.” In support of this affirmation, they merely indicated the following:
a) Martha Moreira, indicated as […] victim No. 345, because she was one of the 22
depositors recognized by the Committee of the Central Bank del Uruguay created
under article 31.
b) Rafael Lena, indicated as […] victim No. 281, because the Peirano brothers had paid
him under an extrajudicial agreement, as indicated by the State in the answer to the
application (page 23).
c) Regarding another depositor, José Pedro Santiesteban, who also reached an
extrajudicial agreement with the Peirano brothers, he is not on the list, but the Court
indicated two people with the same last name on the list of presumed victims under
Nos. 463 and 464, although it is not possible to determine whether this is the same
person.
5
Cf. C Caso Loayza Tamayo Vs. Perú. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Fondo. Resolución de la Corte
Interamericana de Derechos Humanos de 8 de marzo de 1998. Serie C No. 47, párr. 16; Caso Salvador Chiriboga
Vs. Ecuador. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 29 de agosto de 2011. Serie C
No. 230, párr. 11, y Caso Abril Alosilla y otros Vs. Perú. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Fondo, Reparaciones y
Costas. Sentencia de 21 de noviembre de 2011. Serie C No. 235, párr. 10.
6
Cf. Caso Loayza Tamayo Vs. Perú. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Fondo, párr. 16; Caso Salvador
Chiriboga Vs. Ecuador. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Reparaciones y Costas, párr. 11, y Caso Abril Alosilla y
otros Vs. Perú. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, párr. 10.
7
Cf. Caso Loayza Tamayo Vs. Perú. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de
3 de junio de 1999. Serie C No. 53, párr. 15; Caso Salvador Chiriboga Vs. Ecuador. Interpretación de la Sentencia
de Reparaciones y Costas, párr. 30, y Caso Abril Alosilla y otros Vs. Perú. Interpretación de la Sentencia de Fondo,
Reparaciones y Costas, párr. 17.
4