3 the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment. 8. Pursuant to the above-cited provision, the Court has jurisdiction to interpret its judgments. To carry out the examination of the request for interpretation the Tribunal must, whenever possible, be composed of the same judges who delivered the corresponding judgment (Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure). On this occasion, the Court is made up of the same judges that announced the Judgment whose interpretation has been requested. III Admissibility 9. It corresponds to the Court to verify if the terms of the request for interpretation comply with the requirements established in the applicable provisions, specifically, Article 67 of the Convention and Articles 29(3) and 59 of the Rules of Procedure. 10. The Court verifies that the State presented the request for interpretation within the term established in Article 67 of the Convention, since the Judgment was notified to the State on December 18, 2007. 11. Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure states that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 12. Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure states, in what is relevant, 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. 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. 13. As has been previously stated by this Tribunal,4 the request for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as a means of appeal, but instead its exclusive objective is to clarify the sense of a judgment when any of the parties holds that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, as long as these considerations affect said operative paragraphs. Therefore, the modification or annulment of the corresponding judgment may not be requested through a request for interpretation. 14. Considering the terms in which the request and other briefs forwarded by the State were presented, the Court must issue a ruling regarding compliance or not with this requirement of admissibility. 15. The compensation measure ordered by the Court is the following: 232. Based on the above, and given the complexity of determining the commercial value of a company, which could include, inter alia, its capital, the financial situation, the 4 Cfr. Case of Loayza Tamayo. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 5, 2008 Series C No. 178, para. 10, and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 185, para. 9.