namely, Article 67 of the aforementioned Convention, and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure. Also, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 8. The Court notes that both the representatives and the State presented their request for interpretation within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention, because these were presented on January 29, 2020, and May 22, 2020, respectively, and the parties had been notified of the judgment on December 19, 2019.2 Consequently, the request is admissible as regards the time frame for its presentation. Regarding the other requirements, the InterAmerican Court will analyze the merits of this request in the following chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION 9. This Court will examine the requests of the representatives and of the State to determine whether, based on the regulations and the standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any provision of the judgment. 10. The Court has indicated that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used as a means of contesting the decision whose interpretation is required. The purpose of this type of request is, exclusively, to determine the meaning of a ruling when any of the parties claims that the text of its operative paragraphs or of its considerations is unclear or imprecise, provided such considerations affect the said operative paragraphs. Consequently, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek the amendment or nullification of the judgment in question.3 11. The Court has also indicated that it is inadmissible to use a request for interpretation to submit considerations on factual and legal matters that have already been submitted at the property procedural moment and on which the Court has already taken a decision 4, or to expect the Court to re-assess matters that have been decided in the judgment. 5 Similarly, a request cannot be used to try and expand the scope of a measure of reparation that was ordered at the opportune procedural moment.6 12. The Inter-American Court will now examine the questions raised by the representatives and the State as follows: (a) determination of the number of victims and scope of the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment, and (b) scope of the measure of reparations established in section B.3 of the judgment. The Court recalls that in accordance with its Decisions 1/20 and 2/20 the calculation of time frames was suspended from March 17, 2020, to May 20, 2020, owing to the health emergency resulting from COVID-19. 2 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, paras. 12 and 16, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 389, para. 10. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra, para. 15, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 4 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 Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 5 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 Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment on Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 11. 6 3