5 has not been established in the American Convention, or in the Court’s Statute or Rules of Procedure. As both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives have observed, the Court notes that the issue raised by the State relates to a potential event; that is, to a situation that the State supposes could occur in the future: a decision of the domestic courts absolving State agents of responsibility in this case. Positing abstract or hypothetical situations bears no relationship to the purpose of an application for interpretation of judgment. The Court also recalls that, during the proceedings on merits, based on the proven facts and after examining the arguments of the parties and the body of evidence, it determined the international responsibility of the State in this case, and not the individual criminal responsibility of those allegedly responsible for the facts. 17. Consequently, in this regard, this application for interpretation is not in keeping with the provisions of the American Convention and the Rules of Procedure, and the Court therefore declares it inadmissible. V REGARDING THE MEASURES OF RESTITUTION ORDERED IN THE JUDGMENT 18. The State indicated that the Court “has considered a measure of restitution in a separate section from the pecuniary damage[;] however, it ordered the return of the sum of US$7,500.00 [(seven thousand five hundred United States dollars)] to Pelagia Mélida Contreras Montoya de Cantoral ‘so that she may dispose of it as she deems pertinent,’ so that, for all practical effects, the rules of pecuniary damage seem to have been applied, whereas they are not applicable, because, as has been acknowledged, this amount corresponds to the Mining Federation, of which Mr. Cantoral was the Secretary General.” 19. The Commission considered that “since the scope and meaning of the provisions of paragraph 187 of the judgment are clear, the requested interpretation is not in order.” 20. The representatives indicated that this aspect of the judgment “cannot be interpreted” and that “[w]hen ordering the delivery of US$7,500.00 [(seven thousand five hundred United States dollars)] to Pelagia Contreras, the Court considered that she would hand over this sum to the Mining Federation, as she had stated to the representatives.” 21. The Court considers that the question raised by the State contains a doubt about the meaning or scope of the judgment on this aspect; accordingly, it will proceed to interpret it. When establishing the reparations corresponding to the instant case, the Court determined the persons who should be considered “injured party” in the terms of the American Convention and the reparations due. In the chapter of the judgment on reparations, the Court expressly differentiated the compensation corresponding to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (in section “B. Compensation”) and a measure of restitution (in section “C. Measure of restitution”). Under the latter heading, in paragraph 187 of the judgment, the Court ordered the following: C) Measure of restitution 187. Finally, regarding the sum of US$7,500.00 (seven thousand five hundred United States dollars) delivered by the Mining Federation to Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní, which moments before his death, he left in the hotel where he was staying, and which was seized and judicially