5 Court will not take into account those arguments filed out of the stipulated time limit (supra para. 19). B) Requests filed within the time limit established in Article 67 of the Convention 26. The Court has verified that Manuel Saavedra-Rivera and Héctor ParedesMárquez; and Pablo Gonza Tito and Marcelino Isidro Huere filed requests for interpretation on May 29 and 30, 2006, within the time limit set forth in Article 67 of the Convention (supra para. 21), as the Judgment of the Court was notified on March 1, 2006. 27. In addition, as previously decided by this Court, a request for interpretation must not be used as a means for challenging a judgment, for it can only be used to request the Court to clarify the meaning of a judgment when it is argued that the language of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that such considerations have a bearing on the operative paragraphs; hence, no party may seek to alter or annul the judgment through a request for interpretation.3 28. In addition, the Court has held that a request for interpretation of a judgment cannot be used to raise issues of fact or of law already asserted at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and on which the Court has delivered a decision. 4 29. In order to assess the validity of the request for interpretation and, in turn, to clarify the meaning and scope of the Judgment of February 7, 2006, delivered by the Court (supra para. 1), the Court will now consider the issues in the instant case according to the subject-matter thereof under the following subtitles, to wit: a) the persons who are victims in the case of Acevedo-Jaramillo, et al., and the requests for inclusion of additional victims (Chapter V of the instant Judgment); and payment terms applicable to non pecuniary damages and reimbursement of costs, according to the Judgment of the Court (Chapter VI of the instant Judgment). V VICTIMS IN THE CASE OF ACEVEDO-JARAMILLO ET AL., ACCORDING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AND REQUESTS FOR INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL VICTIMS 3 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Request of Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. (Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 9, 2005. Series C No. 131, para. 14; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Request of Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. (Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 128, para. 12, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request of Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. (Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 14. 4 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Request of Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, supra note 3, para. 15; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Request of Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, supra note 3, para. 11, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request of Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, supra note 3, para. 40.