23. Moreover, the arguments submitted by the representatives on this occasion do not provide any relevant element that was unknown when the Judgment was delivered and that this Court needs to analyze, and does not alter the application of the said criteria for the determination of victims in relation to the three persons that they seek to exclude. The information provided by the representatives that the victims Lena and Santiesteban Tristán had made “deals” with the Peirano brothers had already been indicated by Uruguay in its answer to the application, 15 without the State having provided any information to prove that, based on this, the rights of the said victims protected under article 31 of Law 17, 613 had been fulfilled (supra para. 20)16 Neither did the representatives provide any information in this regard when submitting their request for interpretation (supra para. 16). As regards the information provided by the representatives in relation to the victim Martha Moreira, when considering her a victim, the Court took into account that the petition she filed under File No. 2003/0714 was rejected by the Central Bank. None of the parties indicated during the merits stage of this case that the Martha Moreira whose petition was rejected under File No. 2003/0714 (based on which she was declared a victim) was the same person who had benefited from the petition presented by Rolando Massoni under File No. 2004/0228, which was accepted by the Central Bank.17 The Court points out that, during the proceedings, it even asked the Commission to indicate whether any of the petitions of the then presumed victims had been approved by the Board of the Central Bank del Uruguay. The Commission did not submit any information and the representatives did not present any observation in this regard.18 It is only recently, in their request for interpretation, that the representatives affirm that this is the same person, without providing any additional information in this regard (supra para. 16). 24. In addition, regarding the information provided by Mrs. Barbani and Mrs. Breccia concerning the granting of reparations to these three victims, the Court finds it pertinent to recall that, in the judgment, it ordered a measure of reparation designed “to guarantee that the victims in this case or their heirs could file new petitions in relation to the determination of the rights established by article 31 of Law 17,613 […], which must be heard and decided, within three years, with due guarantees, by an organ that has the necessary competence to 15 In its answering brief, the State of Uruguay indicated that Rafael Lena and José Pedro Santiesteban had “made a deal with the brothers José, Dante and Jorge Peirano Basso under which their claim was satisfied.” Furthermore, during the public hearing before the Court, the representatives stated that “two depositors […] who had been involved in the dispute […] went to prison and there reached an extrajudicial deal with the Peirano brothers.” Also, in the list of presumed victims provided by the Inter-American Commission with its final written observation, footnotes 21 and 27 mention that “[a]ccording to the answer to the application […], Mr. Lena made ‘a deal with the brothers José, Dante and Jorge Peirano Basso under which his claim was satisfied,’” and that “[a]ccording to the answer to the application […], Mr. Santiesteban made ‘a deal with the brothers José, Dante and Jorge Peirano Basso under which his claim was satisfied.’” The Court underlines that this was the information presented to it with regard to the said “deals.” 16 Similarly, the Court recalls that, in its judgment, it concluded that other remedies before the ordinary jurisdiction that the State had argued were available to enable the victims to claim their rights “did not grant all the rights established under the said article 31 [of Law 17,613 …]; therefore they c[ould] not be considered effective remedies for the matter that [was] the purpose of the case.” The Court also considered that the application of article 31 of Law 17, 613 and the determination of fulfillment of the requirements it established should be made by the administrative body responsible for the said procedure, which had been created especially to deal with the claims of those who allegedly met the requirements of the said law. Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. para. 229. 17 The Court recalls that it considered as victims in this case those persons who, in person or through a representative, had filed petitions before the Central Bank under article 31 of Law 17,613 that had been rejected by the Board of the Central Bank. Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 146. 18 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 10 to 14. 7