4
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
4.
On March 16, 2005, pursuant to Article 59(2) of the Rules, the Secretariat
transmitted a copy of the request for interpretation to the Inter-American Commission
and to Peru and, following the instructions of the President of the Court (hereinafter,
“the President”), granted them a time limit of two months, as from the receipt of said
copy, to submit any written comments they might deem relevant.
5.
that:
On May 16, 2006, the Commission filed its written comments, in which it stated
a)
it had submitted “its arguments of fact and of law in this case, upon
which […] the Court had rendered [J]udgment;”
b)
“[i]n said [J]udgment, as well as in the dissenting and in the separate
concurrent opinions, some of the arguments of the Commission have been
admitted, and others have been dismissed, in a judgment that, pursuant to the
provisions of Article 67 of the American Convention […] is ‘final and not subject
to appeal’;” and
c)
“the petition for clarification filed by the representatives of the victim
does not meet the standards […] established by the current precedents of the
Court to test requests for interpretation”.
6.
On May 17, 2005, Peru filed its written comments, where it:
a)
pointed out that the representatives, “under the appearance of a request
for interpretation[,] filed […] a brief that is, in fact, a covert appeal challenging
the judgment which is not provided in the legal rules of the Court;”
b)
“protest[ed] and objected that the terms used in [the request for
interpretation] were offensive to the dignity of the […] Court;” and
c)
requested the Court to declare “the petition [for interpretation]
groundless, since the questions included are not consistent with the procedures
for the interpretation of judgments”.