III ADMISSIBILITY 8. The Court’s must verify whether the request for interpretation meets the requirements established in the applicable norms; namely Article 67 of the Convention, cited above, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, the pertinent part of which states: 1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which interpretation is requested[;] […] 4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment[, and] 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 9. In addition, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that, “judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 10. The Court observes that the State filed the request for interpretation within the time frame established in Article 67 of the American Convention, because the judgment was notified to the parties on May 23, 2011, and the request was presented on June 2, 2011. 11. Moreover, and as this Court has ruled in its consistent case law clearly supported by the applicable laws, a request for interpretation of judgment must not be used as a means of contesting the judgment whose interpretation is requested. The exclusive purpose of the request for interpretation is to clarify the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties argues that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that those considerations have a bearing on the said operative paragraphs.2 Therefore, the modification or annulment of the judgment in question cannot be required by a request for interpretation.3 12. The Court will proceed to analyze the request for interpretation presented by the State and, as appropriate, make the pertinent clarifications. To this end, it will examine the questions raised by Ecuador, as well as the observations of the Commission and the representatives. IV REGARDING THE DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF MARCH 3, 2011 Ventura Robles, Judge; Leonardo A. Franco, Judge; Margarette May Macaulay, Judge; Rhadys Abreu Blondet, Judge, and Diego Rodríguez Pinzón, Judge ad hoc. 2 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Judgment of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Court of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 11, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of the Court of May 15, 2011. Series C No. 216, para. 11. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra note 2, para. 16; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, preliminary objection, reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 11, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 11. 3