make a complete analysis of the requirements established in the said law, in the terms established in paragraphs 133 to 142 of the […] Judgment.”19 25. Therefore, if any of the three victims indicated by the representatives on this occasion or any other victim determined in the judgment had, in fact, obtained the two rights established in article 31 of Law 17,613 (supra para. 20), it will correspond to the domestic body that the State determines is competent to make a fresh examination of the petitions under this article 31, and to determine in each specific case whether it is appropriate to grant the respective victim the rights established in the said law, in keeping with paragraphs 248 to 250 of the judgment. In addition, the Court finds, as it has in other cases, 20 that due implementation of the measures of reparation will be evaluated at the stage of monitoring compliance with the judgment; thus the Court will assess any information and observations that the parties may present in this regard at that stage. 26. Based on the preceding considerations, the Court finds that the determination of the victims in this case has been ruled on by this Court in accordance with criteria founded on the Convention and its case law and set forth in its judgment. Consequently, the Court finds that the representatives’ request for interpretation is without merit, because it does not constitute a request for interpretation of the meaning and scope of the judgment,21 and this is contrary to the provisions of Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 27. Therefore, THE COURT pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles 31(3) and 68 of its Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: unanimously, 1. To reject the request for interpretation of judgment presented by Alicia Barbani and María del Huerto Breccia, finding that the claim to exclude as victims three persons who had been declared as such in the judgment of October 13, 2011, is inadmissible, in accordance with paragraphs 13 to 26 of this judgment. 19 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs, second operative paragraph and paras. 247 to 251. 20 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 199, para. 26. 21 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra nota 3, para. 16; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 31; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 18, and Case of Grande v. Argentina. Request for interpretation of judgment on preliminary objections and merits. Order of the Court of February 22, 2012, sixteenth considering paragraph. 8