consider the Applicant’s grievance on the composition of the Court which rendered the judgment of 21 June 2013 mentioned above. |. Interpretation Rules of Article 28(1) of the Protocol and Rule 59(2) of the 3. Article 28(1) of the Protocol provides that «[t]he Court shall render its judgment within ninety (90) days of having completed its deliberations». Rule 59(2) of the Rules, which is aligned to the English version of Article 28(1) of the Protocol, provides that « [t]he decision of the Court shall be rendered by the Court within ninety (90) days from the date of completion of the deliberations », 4. In his application, the Applicant requested for the interpretation of the date of the judgment rendered on 21 June 2013 in terms of these two provisions, and asked the Court whether it was “within the province of Article 28(1) of the Protocol and Rule 59 (2) of the Rules of the Court for the Court to deliver its judgment on 21/6/2013; 11 days after the due date of 10/6/2013 had elapsed”. 5. In its judgment of 28 March 2014, the Court considered this matter and responded in substance that the deadline of ninety days starts running from the end of deliberations and that the final date is an internal matter of the Court (paragraph 8). 6. In my view, the Court did not have to respond to such a question. /n fact, first of all, this question is not related to the operative provisions of the judgment to be interpreted. In terms of Rule 66(2) of the Rules, the application for interpretation of a judgment must « state clearly the point or points in the operative provisions of the judgment on which interpretation is required ». This means that the application for interpretation can only concern the operative provisions (which excludes notably, the part of the judgment dealing with reasons), ‘In its French version, this provision provides for a different rule : « La Cour rend son arrét dans les quatre-vingt-dix (90) jours qui suivent /a cléture de I’instruction de I’affaire" (italics added) ZE we