4 Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, whose interpretation has been requested by the State, with the exception of Judge Cecilia Medina Quinoa, who informed the Court that due to reasons of force majeur she could not be present at the deliberations and signing of the instant Interpretation Judgment. III INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 4. On June 26, 2005, the State brought a request for interpretation of the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, pursuant to Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the Rules. 5. The request for interpretation was based on three aspects: a) “[its] concern for the scope of the measures ordered by the Court in compensation for non pecuniary damages to María Victoria Cruz Franco, [the mother of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz,] because when the Judgment was delivered she was deceased”; b) the distribution of the non pecuniary damages compensation in favor of María Victoria Cruz Franco; e c) “the reasons that led the Honorable [] Court to establish the amounts the State must pay for compensation”. IV PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in article 59(2) of the Rules, and following instructions by the President of the Court (hereinafter called “the President”), the Secretary of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretary”) transmitted a copy of the request for interpretation of the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs to the Inter American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter called “the Commission”) and to the victims representatives and their next of kin (hereinafter called “the representatives”) on June 28, 2005, and notified the parties to the case that they were awarded a period of thirty days to submit any written comments they might see relevant. In addition it also submitted a note to the State reminding it, that pursuant to article 59.4 of the Rules, “[] a request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment”. 7. The representatives submitted their written comments on the request for interpretation, in which they requested the Court, inter alia, “to dismiss the request for interpretation of the Judgment inasmuch as it was a hidden appeal ’”. 8. The Inter American Commission, after an extension granted by the President, submitted its written allegations on the request for interpretation on August 15, 2005, indicating, inter alia, “the request filed by the Salvadoran State does not comply with the required standards to be considered a request for interpretation.” V ADMISSIBILITY 9. The Court is empowered to verify whether the terms of the request for interpretation comply with applicable norms.