5 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. 13. Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure sets forth that “judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 14. The Court has found that the State filed the request for interpretation on November 30, 2005, within the time limit prescribed in Article 67 of the Convention (supra para. 11), as the Judgment on the Merits was notified to Guatemala on October 5, 2005. 15. Moreover, as previously indicated by this Court, a request for interpretation of a judgment should not be used as a means to contest the judgment, but rather its only purpose should be 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 and 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 request for interpretation.2 16. Likewise, the Court has determined that a request for interpretation of a judgment cannot be based on the same arguments that the Court heard at the corresponding procedural moments, and that were examined in its deliberations when delivering judgment.3 17. In order to assess the validity of the request for interpretation and, in turn, clarify the meaning and scope of the Judgment on the Merits delivered by the Court (supra para. 1), the Court will now address the issue raised by the State (supra para. 6). VI REIMBURSEMENT OF LEGAL COSTS AND EXPENSES Arguments of the State 18. The State considers that the amount of US$5,000 (five thousand United States Dollars) to be reimbursed to Raxcacó-Reyes, as ordered by the Court, should 2 Cf. Case of Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 9, 2005. Series C No. 131. para. 14; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 128, para. 12 and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 14. 3 Cf. Case of Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs, supra note 2, para. 15; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 2, para. 11, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, supra note 2, para. 40.