was clear in establishing in detail the elements of evidence that were assessed and the specific criteria used by the Court in the instant case. In addition, after reviewing the information available in the case file and based on criteria of fairness, it determined the amount of the corresponding pecuniary damage. The Court took into account the particular complexity of this calculation and weighed the evidence thoroughly in order to bring to a final conclusion a dispute between the parties that had lasted more than eight years. 17. In this regard, as the representative mentioned, the Court specified that the State had indicated that the salary restructuring had not had the effect of absorbing the increases arising from the salary scale. However, in addition to this argument, the Court took into account other arguments and other evidence. In addition, the Court did not arbitrarily transfer the burden of proof to the representative. To the contrary, the Court reiterated its consistent case law that each party must argue with precision the scope that it seeks to give to the evidence it presents. In summary, the Court notes that the alleged error that the representative indicated, more than a genuine request for interpretation, relates to his disagreement with the Court’s assessment of the evidence, based on what was in the case file and had been argued in that regard, as well as the fact that the Court had not considered the expert opinion offered by the representative a determinant factor. Although the representative indicated that his expert opinion had not been contested, the Court explained the reasons why it considered it insufficient as regards the dispute concerning determination of how to calculate the pecuniary damage. Moreover, the representative’s intention is that the Court re-assess issues that have already decided in the judgment to establish the amount of the pecuniary damage. In this regard, the Court has affirmed the inadmissibility of using a request for interpretation to re-evaluate factual and legal issues that were raised at the appropriate procedural opportunity and regarding which the Court has adopted a decision.6 18. Based on the above, the request for interpretation is inadmissible because the judgment is clear as regards the elements that were assessed in order to determine the amount of the pecuniary damage, and the Court finds that the representative is trying to re-evaluate issues that have been decided by the Court, even though it is not possible to amend or expand the ruling,7 pursuant to Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. IV OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 19. Therefore, 6 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 1, para. 12, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra note 1, para. 30. 7 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra note 2, para. 16; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 11, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 2, para. 11. 5