4 18. On August 13, September 20 and October 19, 2006, Manuel Saavedra-Rivera and Héctor Paredes-Márquez filed written arguments on the request for interpretation (supra para. 3), whereby they asserted new requests. 19. On October 31, 2006, César Passalacqua-Pereyra and Michael Lores-Gongora filed "arguments on the Request for Interpretation” of the Judgment of February 7, 2006 whereby they stated their position as to who should be considered a victim in the case and submitted several dismissal orders. Said brief was at first filed on September 20 and 28, 2006, without their exhibits. IV ADMISSIBILITY 20. The Court must now verify whether the form and terms of the requests for interpretation comply with the applicable rules. 21. Under Article 67 of the Convention, [t]he 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. 22. The relevant provisions of Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure read: 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. […] 2. The Secretary shall transmit the request for interpretation to the parties to the case and shall invite them to submit any written comments they deem relevant, within the time limit established by the President. […] 4. A 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. 23. Under Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure, “Judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” A) Requests filed out of the time limit established in Article 67 of the Convention 24. According to the provisions of Article 67, owing to the fact that the ninety-day term expired on June 1, 2006, the Court deems inadmissible the requests filed after the expiration of said term in relation to the interpretation or clarification of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations issued by the Court on February 7, 2006 (supra paras. 9, 14, 16 and 18). 25. Furthermore, the Court notes that the right to file, at the appropriate procedural moment, written arguments on the requests for interpretation of the above-referred Judgment, does not entail the right of those who filed requests for interpretation to file additional requests (supra paras. 16 and 18). Moreover, the