8 respective amounts of indemnification, for him to receive them within a reasonable time, if they were in order. 29. Furthermore, in operative points 4 and 6 of the judgment on reparations, the Court decided 4. to order the Peruvian State to pay Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado, as compensation for the costs and expenses incurred under domestic jurisdiction and under inter-American jurisdiction, the amount of US$ 20,000 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in Peruvian currency, an amount which includes professional fees. […] 6. to order the State of Peru to make the payments mentioned in operative points 2, 3, and 4 within six months from the notice of this judgment. 30. Article 63(1) of the American Convention prescribes: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 31. The Court has previously stated that [the] request for interpretation of a judgment should not be used as a means to appeal but rather it should have as its 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 that operative parts and, therefore, modification or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be petitioned through a request for interpretation5. 32. As can be seen, the judgment on reparations includes precise specifications regarding various aspects of the reparations to be paid by the Peruvian State: a) As regards material damages (supra 10(1), 10(3) and 10(6)), since it delivered its first judgment on reparations the Court has recognized that violations of protected rights create for the victim a right to reparation of the consequences caused by the breach, including payment of indemnification as compensation for material and moral damages. Thus, to restore insofar as possible the situation that existed before the violations, the judgment on reparations has decided in the instant case that the State must provide the necessary conditions for the person concerned to take steps conducive to obtaining the respective indemnifications for violations declared in the decision on the merits within a reasonable time (supra 28, Operative point 1); 5 Cfr. Ivcher Bronstein Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights), supra 4, para. 19; Suárez Rosero Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 29, 1999. C Series No. 51, para. 20 and Loayza Tamayo Case. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of September 17, 1997. Order of the Court on March 8, 1998. C Series No. 47, para. 16.