7 lempira during that time, a devaluation legally introduced by the Government to reflect the real loss of purchasing power that had occurred during that period. ... Despite the above, the Commission nevertheless understands that both the gravity of the international proceedings and the respect that should be accorded a fair compensation as fixed by that Court, as well as the real loss of over 30 (thirty) per cent of the purchasing power resulting from the delay in payment, require that the Honorable Court declare in the interpretation being sought, that the amount of damages fixed should be understood to be linked to the period of time specified. 23. For these reasons, the Commission ... respectfully requests that the Honorable Court admit this request for amplification of the petition for clarification of the judgment and, furthermore, that payment of interest be ordered for the period from October 20, 1989, to the date of effective payment, plus a retroactive adjustment of the purchasing power of the compensation to that date, to make up for the lempira's devaluation over that same period. 24. The Government's objection to this last request was expressed in the following terms: 1. The compensatory damages judgments issued by the Honorable Court on July 21, 1989, in the cases of ANGEL MANFREDO VELASQUEZ and SAUL GODINEZ CRUZ are perfectly clear, both in their findings and in their operative parts, and thus require no clarification, for they fix in precise terms the total amounts to be paid in lempiras, including the amounts to be set up as trusts in the Central Bank and the interest rate that the trust funds shall accrue annually in that same currency. 2. In fixing the total amount of the compensatory damages and the form of payment thereof in lempiras (both for the sums held in trust and for earnings thereon) the Court acted without taking into consideration, or conditioning the judgments to, any possible decrease in the purchasing power of the Honduran currency. In addition, the judgment set no other monetary guidelines to serve as an adjustment index in order to preserve that purchasing power, nor did it order interest to be paid in the event of delays in meeting the compensation payment schedule. 3. Since such circumstances were not foreseen in the compensatory damages judgment, what the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is seeking in its request for clarification is that the Honorable Court amend its jugdments of July 21, 1989, by introducing new factors of a monetary nature to its operative parts, when it asks the Court to declare that, because of its delay in paying the compensation due, the Government of Honduras should pay interest and adjust the purchasing power of the amounts of compensation to the value they had when payment became due. As already stated, these are factors that were not addressed in the above-mentioned judgments. 4. Since the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are final and not subject to appeal, they have the effect of res judicata. This prevents the parties from reopening a matter in order to obtain a second judgment from the Court, as would happen if the request of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights were to be admitted and if, in addition, the judgments of July 21, 1989, were to be amended. 5. As has been established before that Honorable Court in the presentations made by the Government of Honduras on January 27 and March 5, 1990, during the period beginning July 21, 1989, my Government undertook all necessary steps to comply with the judgments. If there was a delay in the payment of compensatory damages, it was in no way due to negligence or lack