the student called Tembo who was one of the complainants
against the Applicant. So, the Applica nt wants to know whethe r
or not the Court resorted to Rule 44 04 of the Rules of the
European Court of Human Rights in making that determination.
f) Interpretation of the date of the judgme nt in terms of Art 28(1 ) of
the Protocol and Rule 59(2) of the Rules of Court:
The two cited provisions require the Court to give judgme nt
within ninety (90) days after deliberation. The Applica nt wants to
know whethe r it was within the province of the Court to deliver
the judgme nt on 21 June, 2013, instead of 10 June, 2013.
g) Interpretation of the date of judgme nt in terms of Art 15(2) of the
Rules of Proced ure of the IACHR:
The Applica nt points out that wherea s nine judges heard the
case in Mauritius the judgme nt indicates that it is by a majority of
seven to three, that is, a total of ten judges.
h) Interpretation of the judgme nt in terms of Art 30(3) of the Rules of
Procedure of the IACHR and Rule 36 of the Rules:
In paragraph 29 of the judgme nt the Court made a finding that
the Applica nt had not refuted the Respondent's submission
regarding the relationship of Justice Tembo and student Tembo
contained in docume nts "Malawi 1" and "Malawi 2" which were
sent to him on 30 Novem ber, 2012. He asks "How can one
respond to a docume nt that I don't know the content?"
5. The Applica nt has correctly referred to Rule 66 of the Rules but the
authority for that Rule is Article 28(4) of the Protocol which reads:
t/4. The Court may interpret its own decision ".
For its part, Rule 66 reads:
"1. Pursuant to Article 28(4) of the Protocol, any party
may, for the purpose of executing a judgme nt, apply to the
Court for interpretation of the judgme nt.
~
~
~0.