7. In its Application for interpretation, the Republic of Cote d'ivoire prayed the Court to provide answers to the following three questions: " i) For the purposes of implementing the Judgment, the State of Cote d'ivoire prays the Court to avail it of more specific indications on the nomenclature of the new IEC especially with regard to its organization, background, mode of appointment of its members and distribution of the seats. ii) The State would also like to know whether or not the possibility of submitting the Electoral Law for control by a constitutional Judge can help guarantee the independence and impartiality of its members. iii) If yes, the Court may wish to accept to further enlighten the Ivorian authorities on the notion "laws relating to public freedoms." 8. The APDH submits that none of the three issues raised by the Republic of Cote d'ivoire calls for the interpretation of the afore-said Judgment. It therefore prays the Court to declare the Application inadmissible. III. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 9. As indicated above, the instant Application for interpretation concerns the Judgment rendered by the Court on 18 November 2016 10. Article 28 (4) of the Protocol provides that: "... the Court may interpret its own decision". 11. The Court consequently holds that it has the jurisdiction to interpret this judgment IV. ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION 12. As regards admissibility of the Application, Rules 66 (1) and (2) of the Rules stipulates as follows: 3 ~ A~ ~ U2/ ?& ;y---c@