6 requests the agent appointed by the State to abstain from using this type of language in future. V THE COMPOSITION OF THE COURT Arguments of the State 19. With regard to the judgment in this case and the composition of the Court when delivering it, the State indicated that: a) The judgment was not reasoned. In this respect, it alleges that “the [j]udgments that [the] Court should deliver must be reasoned; in other words[,] it is imperative that the facts and their legal consequences should be stated with the corresponding reasoning, and they should reflect the unanimous opinion of the judges, which did not occur in the instant case”; b) Moreover, Judge Pacheco Gómez signed the judgment, and “he was not present, did not attend, and did not participate in any of the hearings of the corresponding oral proceeding, [in other words] he did not hear the arguments or participate when evidence was adduced,” a procedure that violates the principle of immediacy; and c) Lastly, it asserted that, according to the Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Court, “five members of the Court make quorum; therefore, it d[id] not understand this outrage (sic)” with regard to what occured in the case of Judge Pacheco Gómez. Arguments of the Commission 20. The Commission requested the Court “to reject the request for interpretation presented by the Honduran State” and to call upon the State to comply immediately with all the elements of the judgment of June 7, 2003, in accordance with Article 68(1) of the American Convention. In its observations, the Commission referred to the “State’s questioning of the principle of procedural immediacy” and indicated that: a) Article 57(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that judgments shall be signed by all the judges who participated in the voting, and that a judgment signed by the majority of the judges and the Secretary shall be valid; in the case sub judice, from examining the first page of the judgment of June 7, 2003, it can be verified that Judge Pacheco Gómez was part of the composition of the InterAmerican Court “and[,] therefore, participated in its deliberation, decision and signature”; b) The absence of Judge Pacheco Gómez from the one hearing on the case does not imply that he was impeded from participating in the