mean excluding but that discussions with stakeholders have brought to light another interpretation to mean "to perform or to include". In this tegard, the United Republic of Tanzania wishes to have clarification on whether the order of the Court is "to re-open" the trial and if so, the Court should clarify at what stage the trial should be reopened, whether from the beginning or for the defence's case only. III. OBSERVATIONS OF MR. ALEX THOMAS 11. M r. Thomas notes that the Ap plicatio';, for interpretatio n' of Judgment has been filed out of time without any explanation and also that it has failed to meet the provisions of Rule 66 of the Rules. He maintains thai the United Republic of Tanzania has continuously failed to implement the Court's Orders by not reporting on the measures taken to remedy his situation within six (6) months of the Judgment and by failing to respond to his submissions on reparations. 12. Mr. Thomas emphasises that the Application for interpretation of Judgment should have preceded the filing of the report on implementation of the Judgment, which he notes has been filed almost eight (8) months out of time. He urges the Court, when considering the admissibility of the Application, to take into consideration the prejudice occasioned to him by the United Republic of Tanzania's failure to adhere to the Court's Orders and the filing of the Application for interpretation 13. Mr. Thomas states that the United Republic of Tanzania has misinterpreted the meaning of the word "precluding" to mean that the Court ordered a re-openi'ng of the defence case and a retrial at the same time.