3 the Judgment of which the interpretation has been requested. III ADMISSIBILITY 5. The Court must verify whether the terms of the request for interpretation comply with the requirements laid down in the applicable provisions, namely Article 67 of the Convention and Articles 29(3)3 and 594 of the Rules of Procedure. 6. The Court finds that the State filed a request for interpretation within the term set forth in Article 67 of the Convention, since the Judgment was notified to the State, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives on December 21, 2007. 7. Moreover, as previously held by this Court,5 a request for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as a means of challenging a ruling, but rather, its sole purpose should be to clarify the meaning of a ruling when a party alleges that the wording of its operative paragraphs or its whereas clauses is unclear or ambiguous, provided that such considerations have a bearing on the operative part. Consequently, the modification or annulment of the relevant judgment cannot be sought through a request for interpretation. IV CRITERIA OF THE COURT TO HOLD THE FACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF JURISDICTION TO BE INDEPENDENT OR SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS 3 Under Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure, “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 4 Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure provides as follows: 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. 5 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo. Interpretation of Judgment on the Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of Albán Cornejo et al v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 183, para 7; and Case of Pueblo Saramaka v. Surinam. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 185, para. 9.