2 4. On October 25, 1989, the Secretariat, acting pursuant to Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure, communicated the Commission's request to the Government and invited it to submit its written observations within a period of thirty days. 5. In a communication dated November 21, 1989, the Government deemed the Commission's request inadmisible, expressing the opinion that the judgment is clear and requires no interpretation and that to accept such a request would involve an amendment to that judgment. 6. On July, 1990, the Commission submitted a request for amplification of the petition for clarification of the judgment which refers to the material consequences resulting from the Honduran Government's failure to pay the damages stipulated in the judgment by the due date -that is, before October 20, 1989- which has given rise to a new situation which requires, authorizes and justifies the instant request for amplification of the petition for clarification at this point in time. 7. The Commission's communication was transmitted to the Government on July 11, 1990. The Government was also informed that the President had set August 10, 1990, as the deadline for receiving the Government's observations regarding that communication. 8. The Government submitted its observations within the time set by the President and asked the Court to reject the Commission's request. 9. On August 14, 1990, the Government presented a photocopy of Decree Number 59-90, published in the Republic of Honduras' "La Gaceta" of July 21, 1990, which authorized the payment of the damages decreed by the Court in its Judgment of July 21, 1989. The cover letter stated that the amount in question has not been delivered to the interested parties because they are awaiting the results of the public hearing to be held on this date. 10. On that same date, the Court held a public hearing in order to hear the views of the parties regarding the Commission's request. The following persons appeared before the Court: a) for the Government of Honduras Ambassador Edgardo Sevilla-Idiáquez, Agent b) for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Dr. Gilda M.C.M. de Russomano, Delegate and Member Dr. Jorge Seall-Sasiain, Delegate. II 11. On this occasion, the Court was composed of those judges who had decided the merits of the case as well as the corresponding claim for compensatory damages of