8. The Court notes that the State and the representatives presented their requests for interpretation of the judgment on March 16 and 21 2022, respectively; that is, within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention because the judgment was notified to the parties and to the Commission on December 21, 2021. Consequently, both requests are admissible as regards the timeliness of their presentation. Regarding the other requirements, the Court will make the respective analysis when examining the content of the said requests in the following section. IV ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION 9. The Court will now analyze the requests submitted by the State and by the representatives to determine whether, based on the rules and the standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of any aspect of the judgment. 10. The Court has indicated that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used to contest the decision whose interpretation is sought. The sole purpose of this type of request is to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties asserts that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that such considerations have an impact on the respective operative paragraphs. 2 Therefore, it is not possible to request the modification or annulment of the respective judgment by means of a request for interpretation. 3 11. The Court has also indicated that it is inadmissible to use a request for interpretation of judgment to submit considerations on matters of fact and law that were submitted at the proper procedural opportunity and on which the Court has already taken a decision, 4 or to seek for the Court to reassess matters that have already been decided in the judgment. 5 Similarly, this mechanism cannot be used to expand the scope of a measure of reparation ordered in the judgment. 6 12. The Inter-American Court will examine the issues raised as follows: (i) the request for interpretation filed by the State, and (ii) the request for interpretation filed by the representatives. A. Request for interpretation filed by the State A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 13. The State indicated that the Presidential Commission for Peace and Human Rights (hereinafter “COPADEH”) was the body responsible for monitoring compliance with the judgment in this case. According to the State, COPADEH had indicated its “disagreement regarding the meaning and scope” of the said judgment and asked for an “interpret[ation] of the arguments 2 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the 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 Casa Nina v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 433, para. 10. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, supra, footnote 1, para. 16, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 10. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra, para. 15, and Case of Casa Nina v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, 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 of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 11. 6 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 11. 3