Prosecutor General’s Office and subordinate bodies (Decree Law No. 20 of 2014). Regarding provisional appointments, article 11 of Decree Law No. 20 of 2014 stipulates: Art. 11. Types of appointment. In the Prosecutor General’s Office and subordinate bodies posts shall be filled by appointment: 1. Ordinary: For filling posts of free appointment and removal. 2. With a trial period: For filling career posts with the person ranked first on the list of eligible candidates who have passed the selection or competitive process conducted in keeping with the procedure defined in the present decree law. 3. Provisional: To fill career posts or posts of free appointment and removal that are temporarily vacant, while the incumbent is not receiving remuneration, for as long as the administrative situation lasts. Special career posts that are definitively vacant may also be filled by the provisional appointment of a person who has not been selected under the merits system, while the post is being filled through a competitive selection process. The Prosecutor General’s Office may conduct any tests considered necessary on the candidate to occupy a career position by a provisional appointment to assess when the candidate has a suitable profile for the post to be filled; in this regard, if necessary, it will seek the support of the Civil Service Administrative Department. 4. By assignment: To fill career posts or posts of free appointment and removal that are temporarily of definitively vacant, and this shall be governed by the provisions of the regulations relating to administrative situations for staff of the Prosecutor General’s Office and subordinate bodies. 162. However, the Court notes that there are no specific provisions that regulate the removal of provisional prosecutors and that, as it is considered that they can be appointed on a discretionary basis, they are only protected by a moderate stability. However, the Court takes note of the evolution of the case law of both the Council of State and the Constitutional Court (supra paras. 137 and 138) as regards the inclusion of a statement of reasons in the administrative removal order. 163. Taking into account that the Court has declared the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, both in relation to the guarantee of stability of prosecutors, it considers that, as a guarantee of non-repetition, the State must, within a reasonable time, adapt its domestic law to the standards developed in this judgment in relation to the stability of provisional prosecutors as regards their appointment and removal. 30. The Court reiterates that it considers it inadmissible to use a request for interpretation to submit considerations on factual and legal matters that have already been submitted at the proper procedural moment and on which the Court has already taken a decision,8 or to expect the Court to reassess matters that have been decided in the judgment.9 With its request for interpretation, the State is asking the Court to reconsider its analysis of the domestic provisions for the dismissal of provisional prosecutors, which would imply reassessing considerations of fact and law that were already decided in the judgment. Thus, the Court finds this request inadmissible, since it exceeds the scope of the Court's jurisdiction to interpret its judgments established in Article 67 of the Convention. 8 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, Supra, para 15 y Case Indigenous Communities of Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 10. 9 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra, para 30 y Case Indigenous Communities of Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs, supra, para. 10. 7