23. Consequently, it finds that the Application fulfills the first condition provided under Rule 66(1) of the Rules. 24. With regard to the time limit within which an Application should be filed, the Court notes that the applicable time limit is that which is prescribed under Rule 66 (1) of the Rules, and not the time frame of six (6) months allowed by the Court for the Respondent to notify it of the measures taken. 25. The United Republic of Tanzania, having filed its Request for interpretation on 30 January 2017, that is, within the time frame of eight (8) months and twenty-seven (27) days, the Court finds that the United Republic of Tanzania seized the Court of its Application for interpretation within the statutory time frame of twelve (12) months provided under Rule 66 (1) of the Rules. 26. Lastly, 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 xii of the operative provisions of the Judgment. 27.ln 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.ln its Judgment of 3 June 2016, the Court ordered the United Republic of Tanzania to take all appropriate measures to remedy the violations found. 29. On the first question, the United Republic of Tanzania prays the Court to e-- interpret the expression "all appropriate measures" used in point xii of the operative provisions of the Judgment. ~.-/ ~JJf ~I ~ ~~