3 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. 9. The Court has verified that the State filed the request for interpretation within the term established in Article 67 of the Convention, as the Judgment was notified to the State, to the Inter-American Commission, and to the representatives on August 3, 2007. 10. Furthermore, as stated by the Court in prior cases,2 a request for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as a means for contesting it, but must be made for the sole purpose of working out its meaning, where one of the parties claims that the text of its operative paragraphs or considerations is not clear or is imprecise, provided that these considerations have a bearing on said operative paragraphs. Hence, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek the amendment or annulment of the judgment in question. IV REGARDING THE PUBLICATION OF THE FINDINGS REACHED IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 11. The State pointed out that the Judgment ordered that the findings reached in the criminal proceedings be published. In this regard, the State raised several questions: “[I]s a special publication necessary? What does the Court mean by ‘the findings reached in the criminal proceedings?’ Should the entire text of condemnatory judgments be published or only their operative paragraphs? Should decisions acquitting the defendant or any other type of decisions reached in the criminal proceedings be also published?” 12. The Commission noted that if the Court were to decide on this matter, “it would have to issue an opinion in the abstract, without having considered all the relevant facts, for -as a matter of fact- judgment has not even been delivered in the domestic criminal proceedings;” therefore, “regarding issues which are related to the method of compliance with the reparation measures ordered in the judgment, as is this specific issue, it is in relation to the follow-up and monitoring of compliance with the reparation measures ordered that such questions may be raised. Thus, the Court finds the questions raised by the State in the request for interpretation of judgment to be inadmissible.” 13. The representatives deemed it relevant that the State publicize “the facts proven in the judgments rendered in the domestic proceedings, and not only the penalties imposed thereby or their operative paragraphs.” They added that “the method of compliance must be similar to the one used by the Court to publicize the facts proven and the penalties imposed by its judgments.” They suggested that “the Court should order the State to publish periodically (every 6 or 12 months), both in a newspaper of national circulation and in a regional one, a summary of the procedural steps taken and the judgments delivered (both condemnatory judgments or acquittals), in compliance with the obligation to identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible for the death of Germán Escué-Zapata. Such summary should be agreed to 2 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 La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Interpretation of Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2008. Series C No. 175, para. 9, and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Cruz v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2008. Series C No. 176, para. 10.