Respondent to pay the Applicant general compensation for violation of the fundamental right to freedom of movement of persons, goods and services. The Applicant contends that there was an omission of statement that the Court should now remedy, pursuant to the aforementioned articles. 44. Having the Court declared itself entertaining jurisdiction to judge the case pursuant to Article 9 (4) of Additional Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 on the Court of Justice of the Community, and the same is maintained either to rectify clerical or calculation errors or obvious slips, or to remedy any omission of judgment that may exist in the decision that puts an end to a case, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 63 and 64 of the Rules of the Court. 45. Consequently, the Court understands that it entertains jurisdiction to rule over the instant case. IX. ADMISSIBILITY 46. The Respondent in its response invoked the inadmissibility of the Applicant’s application in light of the invoked Articles 63 and 64 of the Court’s Rules, arguing that, in addition to the application having been filed after the legal deadline provided for in said Article 64, its subject matter is in no way related to the cases provided for in Article 63 of the said Rules. 47. It is therefore necessary to verify the admissibility of the Applicant’s application. 11