4 7. The Court must verify whether the terms of the request for interpretation meet the requirements laid down in the applicable provisions, namely Article 67 of the Convention and Articles 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 8. Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure provides as follows: 1. The request for interpretation, referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested. 2. The Secretary shall transmit the request for interpretation to the parties to the case and shall invite them to submit any written comments they deem relevant, within the time limit established by the President. 3. When considering a request for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible, of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which the interpretation is being sought. However, in the event of death, resignation, impediment, excuse or disqualification, the judge in question shall be replaced pursuant to Article 16 of these Rules. 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 9. Under Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure, “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 10. The Court has verified that Fernández-Saré submitted the aforementioned request for interpretation within the time limit prescribed in Article 67 of the Convention, as notice of the Judgment was transmitted to the parties on December 21, 2006. 11. Moreover, as previously held by this Court, 3 a request for the interpretation of a judgment should not be used as a means to appeal the ruling but, rather, its sole purpose should be to clarify the meaning of a ruling when a party maintains that the text in its operative paragraphs or its considering clauses is not clear or precise, provided that such considerations have a bearing on the operative paragraphs. Consequently, the modification or annulment of the relevant judgment cannot be sought through a request for interpretation. 12. In addition, the Court has held that a request for the interpretation of a judgment may not consist in the submission of issues of fact or of law that have already been asserted at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and on which the Court has already ruled. 4 13. In order to assess the admissibility of the request for interpretation filed by Fernández-Saré and, if appropriate, to clarify the meaning and scope of the Judgment of 3 Cf. Case of Loayza-Tamayo V. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 159, para. 13, and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. V. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 27. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza-Tamayo V. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Reparations. Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 4, para. 14, and Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. V. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 4, para. 28.