3 doctrine consistently followed by the Court, but it is rather an effort aimed at relitigating issues already addressed in the Judgment. As a result, the representatives prayed the Court to dismiss such request, for what the State seeks is to challenge the Judgment. IV ADMISSIBILITY 9. The Court must now verify whether the terms of the request for interpretation comply with the applicable rules. 10. Under Article 67 of the Convention, [t]he judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal. In the event 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. 11. The relevant provisions of Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure establish 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. 12. Under Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure, “Judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 13. The Court has found that the State filed the request for interpretation on January 5, 2006, within the time limit prescribed in Article 67 of the Convention (supra para. 2), as the State was notified of the Judgment on October 7, 2006. 14. As this Court has previously stated, a petition for the interpretation of a judgment should not be used as a means to appeal but rather it should have the only purpose to clarify the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties maintains that the text in its operative parts or in its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that such considerations have a bearing on the operative parts and, therefore, modification or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be petitioned through a 1 request for interpretation. Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. (Art. 67(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 8, 2006. Series C No. 145, para. 14; Case of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 6, 2006. Series C No. 143, para. Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. (art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 6, 2006. Series C No. 142, para. 15. 1