III ADMISSIBILITY 7. The Court must verify whether the requests presented by the State and the representatives meet the requirements established in the rules applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely, the aforementioned Articles 67 of the Convention and 68 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 8. The Court notes that the representatives presented their request for interpretation of the judgment within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention because it was presented on February 28, 2022, and the judgment was notified to the parties on November 30, 2021; consequently, the request for interpretation is admissible as regards the timeliness of its presentation. The other requirements will be analyzed in the following section. IV ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 9. The Court will now analyze the request submitted by the representatives to determine whether, based on the rules and the standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of any element of the judgment. 10. The Court has indicated that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used to contest the decision whose interpretation is sought. The sole purpose of this type of request is to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties asserts that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that such considerations have an impact on the respective operative paragraphs. 2 Therefore, it is not possible to request the modification or annulment of the respective judgment by means of a request for interpretation. 3 11. The Court has also indicated that it is inadmissible to use a request for interpretation of judgment to submit considerations on matters of fact and law that were submitted at the proper procedural opportunity and on which the Court has already taken a decision, 4 or to seek for the Court to reassess matters that have already been decided in the judgment. 5 Similarly, this mechanism cannot be used to expand the scope of a measure of reparation ordered in the judgment. 6 12. The Inter-American Court will examine the issues raised in the following order: (a) the time frames for Manuela’s sons to indicate their interest in receiving educational scholarships; (b) the scope of the measure of rehabilitation (medical, psychological and/or psychiatric treatment), and (c) the calculation of the time frame for initiating monitoring of compliance with the measure of 2 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 433, para. 10. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra, footnote 1, para. 16, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 10. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo Vs. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra, para. 15, and Case of Casa Nina Vs. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 5 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 11. 6 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 11. 3