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”.