15. Lastly, the State observed that, even though, the Court had not included in its Judgment individuals who had suffered the alleged violations in some specific places, the Court had established an exception to this criterion by determining that “the Court will not consider the persons who suffered a possible violation of their rights in the said places to be victims in this case, unless the evidence reveals that, at the time of the facts, they were in one of the places that are the object of this case.” In this regard, the State understood that the Court “consider[ed] that evidence might arise subsequently proving that the acts that violated human rights that were declared in the Judgment ha[d] also affected individuals who lived in the places initially excluded in paragraph 56 [of the Judgment], which would allow those individuals to acquire the status of victims and to accede to the reparations ordered.” Accordingly, the State considered that the Single List of Victims and Next of Kin of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations during the Massacre of El Mozote would permit, under the terms of the Judgment, ‘the inclusion of persons and next of kin who [had] suffered grave human rights violations and the determination of their status as victims, […] even if the said acts were perpetrated in the village of El Pinalito, the canton of Tierra Colorada, the town of Arambala, the canton of Guacamaya, or other places that adjoined the villages which the […] Court had expressly declared as places affected.” Lastly, the State considered that the exclusion of certain villages and places in the Judgment “should not be understood as absolute,” and indicated its willingness to consider as included in the Judgment, victims of grave human rights violations declared by the Court who were individualized with sufficient certainty in the future and whose rights had been violated in the town of Arambala, in the village of El Pinalito, and in the cantons of Tierra Colorada and Guacamaya. 16. The Commission recalled that the factual framework of the case was constituted based on the facts established in the Merits Report that, in this case, was composed of the report itself and three annexes which referred to the places identified by the representatives in their request. One of these annexes included “victims from the localities of Tierra Colorada, Arambala, El Pinalito and Guacamaya.” In this regard, the Commission indicated that it had taken into consideration that these places were nearby or formed part of the seven cantons and/or villages mentioned primarily in the Merits Report and that, owing to the massive and indiscriminate nature of the massacres, it had included these places in the annex to the report as part of the factual framework relating to the identification of the victims. Similarly, it recalled “that the total acquiescence expressed by the State […] incorporated all the facts and legal considerations of the [Commission’s] report,” which included the said three annexes. Consequently, the Commission considered it relevant that the Court clarify this matter, because it could have significant implications in relation the identification of the victims of the case and the award of reparations, especially with regard to implementing the Single List of Victims in a way that was compatible with the exceptional nature of this case. Considerations of the Court 17. In order to analyze the admissibility of the representatives’ request, the Court takes into consideration its consistent case law, clearly supported by law, that a request for interpretation of judgment may not be used as a means of contesting the decision whose interpretation is required. The purpose of this request is exclusively to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties affirms that the text of its operative paragraphs or of its considerations is unclear or imprecise, provided that those considerations have an impact on the said operative paragraphs. 5 Consequently, the 5 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Judgment of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Atala Riffo and 5