orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 7. The Court notes that the State submitted its request for interpretation within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention. Indeed, the judgment was notified on December 20, 2021, and therefore, the request for interpretation—filed on February 22, 2022—is admissible as far as the deadline for its submission is concerned. With regard to the other requirements, the Inter-American Court will perform the corresponding analysis in the next chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION 8. The Court will now examine the State’s request for interpretation to determine whether, in accordance with the law and the standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the Judgment. 9. The Court has found that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used to challenge a decision whose interpretation is being requested. The exclusive purpose of such a request is to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties finds that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations are unclear or imprecise, as long as these considerations have an impact on the operative paragraphs. Therefore, the modification or annulment of the judgment in question cannot be requested through a request for interpretation. 3 10. The Court has also held that it is inadmissible to use a request for interpretation to submit considerations on matters of fact and law that were already raised at the proper procedural moment and regarding which the Court has already issued a decision, 4 or to ask the Court to reassess matters that it has already ruled on in its judgment. 5 This proceeding can also not be used to broaden the scope of a measure of reparation ordered at the proper procedural moment. 6 11. Hereinafter, the Inter-American Court will examine the issues raised in the following order: a) the request for interpretation of paragraph 279 of the judgment, regarding the reason for determination of distribution of the corresponding compensation Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 461, para. 10. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 461, para. 11. 4 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 461, para. 11. 5 Cf. Case of Escher et al. Reparations, and Costs. Judgment al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series 6 v. Brazil. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Manuela et of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. C No. 461, para. 11. 3