occasion, the Court is composed of the same judges who delivered the judgment the interpretation of which has been requested. III ADMISSIBILITY 6. It is incumbent upon the Court to verify whether the request submitted by the State complies with the requirements established in the rules applicable to a request for interpretation of a Judgment, namely, Article 67 of the Convention and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure.2 Furthermore, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that "[t]he judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way”. 7. The Court notes that the parties were notified of the Judgment on December 21, 2021, and the State submitted its request for interpretation on March 21, 2022, within the 90-day time limit established in Article 67 of the Convention. Therefore, the request is admissible as far as the time period in which it was filed is concerned. As for the other requirements, the Court will analyze them in the next chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. This Court will analyze the State's request for interpretation to determine whether or not, pursuant to the norms and standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of any provision of the Judgment. 9. The Court has indicated that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used as a means of contesting the decision whose interpretation is required. The exclusive purpose of this type of request is to determine the meaning of a ruling when any of the parties claims that the text of its operative paragraphs or of its considerations is unclear or imprecise, provided such considerations affect the said operative paragraphs. Consequently, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek the amendment or nullification of the judgment in question.3 10. The Court has also indicated that it is inadmissible to use a request for interpretation to submit considerations on factual and legal matters that have already been submitted at the proper procedural moment and on which the Court has already taken a decision,4 or to 2 This article establishes that: “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.” 3 Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 433, para. 10. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 15, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 11. 3