III ADMISSIBILITY 8. The Court must determine whether the request submitted by the representatives fulfills the requirements set forth in the provisions applicable to a request for interpretation of Judgment, namely, Article 67 of the Convention, cited previously, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that: 1. 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. 9. Likewise, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure states that “judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 10. The Court notes that the representatives presented their request for interpretation of the Judgment within the ninety-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention, given that it was notified on March 20, 2012. 11. As the Court has ruled previously in its consistent case law, clearly supported by the applicable legal rules, a request for interpretation of judgment must not be used as a means of challenging the judgment whose interpretation is sought. The sole purpose of such a request is to clarify the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties considers that the text of its operative paragraphs or of its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that these considerations have a bearing on those operative paragraphs. 3 Therefore, the modification or annulment of the judgment in question cannot be sought through a request for interpretation.4 12. The Court will proceed to analyze the request for interpretation submitted by the representatives and, if appropriate, will make the pertinent clarifications. To do so, it will examine the points raised by the representatives, as well as the arguments offered by the State and the Commission. IV ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on Merits. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 8, 1998. Series C Nº. 47, para. 16; and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 11. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on Merits, para. 16; and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations and Costs, para. 11. 3