4 13. The State requested that the Court clarify Operative Paragraph Five of the Judgment, which establishes that “[t]he State must pay the amounts set in [the] Judgment as compensation for [pecuniary] damages, [non-pecuniary] damages, and reimbursement of costs and expenses within one year as of notice of [the] Judgment, under the terms of paragraphs 134, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 and 155 thereof.” It requested that the Court “specify whether [the costs and expenses should be reimbursed] to the legal persona called the [‘]Association of Discharged and Retired Employees,[’] or to [the] natural persons declared victims [in] the [J]udgment[.] [In] the latter case, [the State asked the Court] to indicate the appropriate form of payment.” The question arises because although “paragraph 150 of the Judgment […] orders the payment of USD $20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars[)] for costs and expenses directly to the [‘]Association of Discharged and Retired Employees,[’]” “paragraph 151 [of the Judgment] indicates that the payment shall be made directly to the victims.” 14. The representative indicated that in the present case, the costs and expenses “refer to the expenditures made and [the] professional fees paid and/or owed by the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees […] to the law firm Carlos Blancas Bustamante Abogados E.I.R.L., as well as [to] the expenses incurred by CEDAL due to its provision of legal services in the proceedings before the Inter-American System”. Thus, the representative concluded that “there is no contradiction in the order of the […] Court contained in paragraphs 150 and 151 of its [J]udgment, as it determines that the State must pay the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees […] – of which the victims form a part as members – the amount indicated in paragraph 150 [thereof]. In turn, the victims shall pay, through the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees, the amount they deem appropriate to those who represented them at the domestic level and in proceedings before the InterAmerican System.” 15. The Commission observed that, “in effect, paragraphs 150 and 151 of the Judgment could provide for different interpretations.” Therefore, it “considered relevant that the […] Court clarify this issue in the corresponding interpretation judgment, so that the State may proceed to make the payments [for reimbursement of costs and expenses].” 16. The Tribunal considers that the scope and content of Operative Paragraph Five of the Judgment is clear. Nevertheless, in order to clarify any doubt that may arise in that regard, it will answer the question posed by the State and interpret said Operative Paragraph and the corresponding considering clauses, in accordance with Article 67 of the American Convention and Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 17. First, the Inter-American Court recalls that in its decision of July 1, 2009, it found violations of the rights to judicial protection and private property recognized in Articles 25(1), 2592)(c), 21(1), and 21(2), respectively, of the American Convention, due to the prolonged and unjustified lack of compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru of October 21, 1997, and January 26, 2001, to the detriment of the two hundred and seventy-three members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller indicated in paragraph 113 of the Judgment. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered reparations in favor of the victims, as well as the reimbursement of costs and expenses. 18. Operative Paragraph Five of the Judgment establishes that “[t]he State must pay the amounts set in [the] Judgment as compensation for [pecuniary] damages, [non-pecuniary] damages, and reimbursement of costs and expenses within one year as of notice of [the] Judgment, under the terms of paragraphs 134, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154 and 155 thereof.”