2. The Application shall state clearly the point or points in the operative provisions of the judgment on which interpretation is required”. 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. 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. However, there are two points which, need to be explained. for the avoidance One, the Applicant asked of confusion, 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 the Court to 28(1) of the mind of the date of 10 June, 2013. In any determine that request, since Protocol and Rule 59(2) of the Applicant of any confusion, the case, it is not important it has already cited what Rules provide. To clear President when closing hearing in Mauritius on 30 November, 2012, clarified it further: for Art the the Se “Not 90 days as of today, 90 days of completion of deliberation. When the Court is ready with its judgment for I : 4% Se :