III ADMISSIBILITY 6. It is the responsibility of the Court to verify that the request submitted by the State meets the requirements established in the rules applicable to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely, Article 67 of the Convention cited previously and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure. 2 Furthermore, 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 parties were notified of the judgment on January 25, 2023, and that the State submitted its request for interpretation on April 17 of the same year, within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention. Therefore, the request for interpretation is admissible as regards its timeliness. With respect to the other requirements, the Court will analyze the merits of the request for interpretation in the following chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. This Court will now examine the State’s request for interpretation to determine whether, based on the rules and standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any provision of the judgment. 9. The Court has indicated that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used as a means to challenge a decision whose interpretation is required. The purpose of such a 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 is unclear or imprecise, provided that these considerations affect said operative paragraphs. Hence, the amendment or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be sought through a request for interpretation. 3 10. The Court has also held that it is inadmissible to use a request for interpretation to submit considerations on matters of fact and law that were already raised at the proper procedural time and on which the Court has already adopted a decision, 4 or to seek that the Court reassess matters already decided in the judgment. 5 Similarly, this 2 This article states 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.” 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations. Judgment of November 21, 2033. Series C No. 480, para. 10. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra, para. 15, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, supra, para. 11. 5 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30 and Case National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, supra, para. 11. 3