3 8. On June 1, 2006, the term to file requests for interpretation set forth in Article 67 of the Convention expired. 9. On June 24, 2006, Robin Elguera-Cancho filed a brief requiring clarification of operative paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations issued by the Court on February 7, 2006. 10. On July 24, 2006, according to the provisions of Article 59(2) of the Rules of Procedure and following instruction of the President of the Court, the Secretariat of the Court served a copy of the requests for interpretation filed on May 29 and 30, 2006 (supra paras. 3 and 4) on the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or "the Inter-American Commission”), the State of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”) and the common intervener for the victims' representatives and notified them that they may file written arguments until September 20, 2006. Likewise, the Secretariat sent a note to the State reminding it that, pursuant to Article 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure, “[a] request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment.” 11. On September 19, 2006 the common intervener for the victims’ representatives requested a time extension to file written arguments to the requests for interpretation of the Judgment delivered by the Court on February 7, 2006. 12. On September 20, 2006, following the instructions of the President of the Court, the Inter-American Commission, the State and the common intervener for the victims’ representatives were granted a time extension up to October 4, 2006 to file their written arguments on the requests for interpretation. 13. On September 20, 2006, the Inter-American Commission submitted written arguments on the requests for interpretation filed on May 29 and 30, 2006. 14. On September 20, 2006, César Passalacqua-Pereyra and Michael LoresGóngora2 filed their "arguments on the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of February 7, 2006” whereby they stated their position as to who should be considered a victim in the case. Furthermore, they made requests for interpretation in relation to other issues of the Judgment of the Court which had not been included in the original requests for interpretation (supra para. 5). 15. On September 25 and October 2, 2006, the State filed written arguments on the requests for interpretation together with "complementary documents" in support of said arguments. Said briefs were at first filed on September 20 and 28, 2006, without their exhibits. 16. On September 28 and October 2, 2006, Pablo Gonza Tito and Marcelino Isidro Huere filed written “arguments” on the request for interpretation (supra para. 4) whereby they asserted new requests. 17. On October 4, 2006, the common intervener for the victims’ representatives filed written arguments on the requests for interpretation. The exhibits to that brief were filed on November 3, 2006. These people were included as alleged victims in the application of the Commission, but were not declared victims in the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006. 2