11. The Court also considers, as it has previously, 8 that proper implementation of the measures of reparation will be assessed during the stage of monitoring compliance with the Judgment; consequently, the Court will assess any information and observations that the parties may submit during that stage. 12. Within the framework of a proceeding for interpretation of the judgment, it is incumbent on this Court to resolve any disagreements indicated by the parties regarding the meaning and scope of the Judgment. However, the Court considers that the disagreements expressed by the State in its brief of March 5, 2013, do not refer to doubts about the meaning and scope of the Judgment and, consequently, they are not a matter for interpretation and do not affect the final and non-appealable nature of the Judgment. Hence, in this Judgment, the Court will only rule on the request for interpretation filed by the representatives on March 20, 2013 (supra para. 3). 13. Likewise, the similar arguments of the State in its brief of April 30, 2013 (supra paras. 5 and 8), will not be examined by the Court in this decision, because they do not refer to doubts about the meaning and scope of the Judgment or the questions posed by the representatives in their request for interpretation. IV ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 14. The Court must verify whether the request presented by the representatives complies with the requirements for a request for interpretation of judgment established in the applicable norms: namely, Article 67 of the Convention, cited above, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, the pertinent parts of which stipulate that: 1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits, or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which 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. 15. 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.” 16. The Court has verified that the representatives forwarded their request for interpretation on March 20, 2013, within the time frame established in Article 67 of the Convention for the presentation of a request for interpretation of judgment (supra para. 6), because it was notified on December 21, 2012. Therefore, the request is admissible as regards the time of presentation. V ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 199, para. 26. 4