5 10. Article 67 of the Convention establishes that [The] judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment 11. Article 59 of the Rules establishes, non pertinent that: 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. […] 4. The 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. 12. Article 29(3) of the Rules, establishes that “[J]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way”. 13. The Court verified that the State filed the request for interpretation of Judgment on June 26, 2005, within the deadline established in article 67 of the Convention (supra para. 10), since the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs was notified to El Salvador on march 29, 2005. 14. On the other hand, as previously established by this Tribunal, a request for interpretation of a Judgment should not be used to contest the judgment, but rather, its objective should be to exclusively clarify the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties holds that the text on resolutions, or on its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that these considerations affect the part containing the resolutions, and consequently, the amendment or elimination of the respective judgment cannot be claimed through the request for interpretation.1 15. Also, the Court established that the request for interpretation of a judgment cannot consist in the submission of factual and legal foundations previously laid during the proceedings, and to which the Tribunal has already entered a judgment.2 Cfr. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Request for the interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparation, and Costs (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 128, para. 12; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 14; and the Case of Cesti Hurtado. Interpretation of the Reparations Judgment. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 2001. Series C No. 86, para. 31. 1 2 Cfr. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparation and Costs, supra note 1, para. 11; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, supra note 1, para. 40; and Case of Loayza