interpretation of judgment, namely Article 67 of the af orementioned Convention and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure. Similarly, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that "[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way." 7. The Court notes that the State presented its request f or interpretation within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention. Because the parties were notif ied of the judgment on January 26, 2022, the request f or interpretation presented on April 22, 2022, is admissible as regards its timeliness. Regarding the other requirements, the Inter-American Court will analyze the merits in the f ollowing chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION 8. This Court will examine the request of the State to determine whether, based on the rules and standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate to clarif y the meaning or scope of any provision of the judgment. 9. The Court has indicated that a request f or interpretation of a judgment cannot be used as a means of challenging the decision whose interpretation is required. The purpose of said request is exclusively to determine the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties maintains that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, as long as those considerations af f ect said operative paragraphs. Theref ore, the modif ication or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be sought through a request f or interpretation2. 10. Additionally, the Court has upheld the inadmissibility of using a request f or interpretation to submit considerations on matters of f act and law already raised at the proper procedural time and on which the Court has already adopted a decision 3, nor to seek that the Court again assess matters already decided in the judgment 4. Similarly, this avenue cannot be used to attempt to broaden the scope of a reparation measure ordered in a timely manner 5. 11. Below, the Inter-American Court will examine the matters raised in the f ollowing order: a) the State's request f or interpretation regarding the direct incorporation of the rights derived f rom article 26 of the Convention, and b) the State’s request f or interpretation regarding the issues concerning the rights developed in the judgment that are not based on treaties subject to ratif ication by States.” Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Order of the C o urt o f March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Casa Nina V. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. S er ies C No . 433, para. 10. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, s up r a , para. 15, and Case of Casa Nina v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objectio ns , m er its , reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 4 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations a nd c os ts . Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of Casa Nina v. Perú. Interpreta tio n o f the judgment of preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs , supra para. 11. 5 Cf. Case of Escher et al v. Brazil. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary obj ectio ns, m e rits , reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Casa Nina v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment of preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra pa ra . 11. 2 3