25. With regard to the time limit within which such an Application should be filed, the Court notes that the Judgment in respect of which interpretation is requested was rendered on 20 November 2015 and that the United Republic of Tanzania filed its Application for interpretation on 30 January 2017, just over two (2) months after the twelve (12) month period provided under Rule 66(1) of the Rules. However, Rule 66(1) allows the Court to accept such applications even after the twelve (12) month period specified, if this is in the interest of justice. The Court considered the circumstances of the matter and decided to allow the application on this basis. 26. Lastly, the Court notes that the United Republic of Tanzania clearly stated the points in the operative provisions of the Judgment on which interpretation is required, namely, the terms and expressions used in point (ix) of the operative provisions of the Judgment. 27. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that the instant Application for interpretation fulfills all the conditions of admissibility. VI. INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT 28. In its judgment of 20 November 2015, the Court ordered the United Republic of Tanzania to take all necessary measures to remedy the violations found. 29. On the first question, the United Republic of Tanzania prays the Court to interpret the expression "all necessary measures" used in point ix of the operative provisions of the Judgment. 30. The Court notes that in examining an Application for interpretation, it does not complete or modify the decision it rendered-t being a final decision with the effect of res judicata - but clarifies the meaning and scope thereof. 31. Court wishes to recall the principle generally applied by international jurisdictions that reparation should, as far as possible, erase the cOllsequences of .an unlawful 8