3 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 8. Additionally, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that "[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way." 9. The Court notes that the State presented its request for interpretation of the judgment within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention, since the judgement was on December 23, 2013. Therefore, the request for interpretation is admissible as regards its timeliness. Regarding the other requirements, the Inter-American Court will analyze them when examining the merits of the interpretation request in the following chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE VALIDITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 10. This Court will analyze the State's request for interpretation to determine whether, in accordance with the regulations (supra paras. 5 y 7) and standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the judgment. 11. In order to examine the State’s request for interpretation, the Court considers its jurisprudence, based in the relevant regulations, whereby it has been has indicated that a request for interpretation of a judgment cannot be used as a means of challenging the decision for which an interpretation has been requested. A request for interpretation must have the sole purpose of determining the meaning of the decision when one of the parties asserts that the text of its operative paragraphs or of its reasonings are unclear or imprecise, provided those reasonings affect the operative part of the judgment. 2 Hence, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek an amendment or nullification of the judgment in question.3 12. Additionally, the Court has indicated that it is inadmissible to use a request for interpretation to submit considerations on factual and legal matters that were already submitted at the proper procedural moment and on which the Court has already decided,4 or to seek that the Court reassess issues that have already been decided upon in the judgment.5 Similarly, an interpretation request cannot be used to try to broaden the scope of a measure of reparation duly ordered at the proper procedural moment.6 Moreover, the Court has also indicated that the submission of abstract or Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment of merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 21, 2014. Series C No. 280, para. 17. 2 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment of merits, supra para. 16, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 17. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment dated June 03, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 18. 4 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment dated August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 18. 5 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment dated November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 18. 6