3 judgment on the merits, in particular the matter of reparations for material damages. As the purpose of both requests is the same, this Court will decide them jointly. IV ADMISSIBILITY 8. Under Article 67 of the Convention, the request for interpretation must be filed “within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” The Court has established that the parties were given notice of the judgment on the merits in this case on February 9, 2001. The requests for interpretation were, therefore, presented within the required time limit (supra 2). 9. The State’s comments were received at the Secretariat of the Court on July 2 and 3, 2001, by which time the deadline the Court had set for that purpose had already passed. They were, therefore, submitted extemporaneously. Applying the criterion of reasonableness and timeliness, the Court is nonetheless admitting the written comments, inasmuch as they were received at the Secretariat one and two days alter the deadline, respectively (supra 3 and 4), a delay that does not tilt the balance that the Court must keep between the protection of human rights and the principle of legal certainty and justice.2 10. Concerning judgments of interpretation, the Court has held that [t]he transparency of this Court is enhanced by clarification, when it so deems appropriate, of the content and scope of its Judgments, thereby dissipating any doubts about them and that they not be challenged by merely formal considerations.3 11. The Court must now turn its attention to the question of whether the issues that the request for interpretation raises meet the standard set in the applicable rules.4 Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure provides that: [t]he request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. 12. The requests for interpretation filed by the Commission and by Mr. Ivcher are based on the fact that there is a difference of opinion as to the whether the reparation ordered by the Court in its judgment on the merits includes “reparation for material damages.” 2 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 41; Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 50; Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C No. 24, para. 34; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, paragraphs 38, 40-42, and Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, paragraphs 42 and 63. 3 Blake Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of October 1, 1999. Series C No. 57, para. 20; and El Amparo Case. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of September 14, 1996. Order of the Court of April 16, 1997. Series C No. 46, Consideranda 1. 4 Cf. Barrios Altos Case. Interpretation of the judgment on the merits (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, para.11.