3 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 8. The Court verifies that the State filed the request for interpretation within the term set forth in Article 67 of the Convention, as notice of the Judgment was served upon the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives on June 8, 2007. 9. On the other hand, as previously decided by this Court 2, a request for interpretation of a judgment must not be used as a means of objection; its only purpose must be to disentangle the meaning of a decision when one of the parties claims that the text of the operative paragraphs or fundaments lacks clarity or precision, provided those considerations have influence in the said operative part. Consequently, the amendment or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be claimed through a request for interpretation. 10. In order to analyze the admissibility of the request for interpretation filed by the State and -should it be the case-, in order to clarify the meaning or the scope of the Judgment, the Court shall separately analyze the three different situations submitted before it, as well as the relevant comments made by the Commission and the representatives. IV SITUATION OF MMES. PAOLA MARTÍNEZ ORTIZ AND BLANCA HERRERA SUÁREZ 11. The State pointed out that for the benefit of these two permanent companions of two of the victims declared deceased by the Court in its Judgment, a compensation was ordered in order to “fairly balance the compensation they received at domestic level, which was lower than that awarded to the spouses.” However, the State indicated that paragraph 270 of the Judgment sets forth that at the time of liquidation of the reparations ordered, the amounts granted at domestic level may be deducted in the administrative-law proceedings. For that reason, the State “requests that the Court clarifies if the amount paid by virtue of the domestic proceedings must be deducted out of the $30,000 [thirty thousand United States dollars or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency] ordered in the Judgment.” 12. On that matter, the Commission expressed that “the payment of the compensation in the amount of $30,000 [thirty thousand United States dollars or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency] corresponds to the amount the Court decided to award in equality in order to balance the disadvantage of the compensation received for their status of [permanent] female companions." It further expressed that “[i]t would be illusional to expect to deduct the amount paid from the compensation ordered, when the said amount was ordered so as to even the payments made by Colombia." 13. The representatives considered that “even though the Judgment may be somehow confusing in this respect, a thorough analysis thereof reveals that the Court intention could not have been to order to discount the compensations received as moral damages by Mmes. Martínez and Herrera at domestic level out of the $30,000 [thirty thousand United States dollars or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency].” With regard to that, they expressed that “the Court award[ed] a compensation for non-pecuniary damage of $70,000 [seventy thousand United States dollars or the equivalent amount in Colombian currency] to 2 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo. Interpretation of Judgment on the Merits. Court Decision of March 8, 1998. C Series No. 47, par. 16; Case of La Cantuta. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2007. C Series No. 173, par. 9 and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al). Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2007. C Series No. 174, par. 11.