2. The Application shall state clearly the point or points in the operative provisions of the judgment on which interpretation is required 11• 6. Interpretation of a judgment can be sought from the Court "for the purpose of executing" the judgment. In the present case the judgment dismissed the Application on the grounds that local remedies had not been exhausted; it imposes no positive obligation capable of being executed. Therefore, there cannot be an application for interpretation of the judgment in terms of Art 28(4) of the Protocol as read together with Rule 66 of the Rules because there is no execution that is possible under the judgment of the Court. 7. Moreover, the Application does not comply with Rule 66(2) in that it does not "state clearly the point or points in the operative provisions of the judgment on which interpretation is required ". On the contrary , the Application is generally incoherent and incomprehensible. The eight 'points' posed by the Applicant can never be points for interpretation as they do not relate to the operative paragraphs of the judgment. On a number of issues the Applicant asks for the Court's opinion , such as whether he can go back to the Commission . 8. However, there are two points which , for the avoidance of confusion, need to be explained. One, the Applicant asked whether it was within the province of the Court to deliver judgment on 21 June, 2013, instead of 10 June, 2013. The Applicant does not tell us from where he came up with the date of 10 June, 2013. In any case, it is not important for the Court to determine that request , since it has already cited what Art 28(1) of the Protocol and Rule 59(2) of the Rules provide . To clear the mind of the Applicant of any confusion , the President when closing th=e'---_ hearing in Mauritius on 30 November, 2012, clarified it further: "Not 90 days as of today, 90 days of completion of deliberation. When the Court is ready with its judgment for ( lJ 5 0 <:F:'o .