to reassess matters that have been decided in the judgment.6 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.7 19. The Inter-American Court will examine the issues raised in the following order: (A) the request for an interpretation regarding the State’s obligation to pay the contributions to Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia's pension fund and (B) the request for an interpretation regarding the need to adapt domestic provisions to guarantee the stability of provisional prosecutors. A. Scope of the State's obligation to pay contributions to Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia's pension fund A.1. Pleadings by the parties and the Commission 20. The State requested clarification on the reparation measure ordered in the operative paragraph seven of the judgment, that “[t]he State shall pay the contributions to Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia’s pension fund, pursuant to paragraph 155 of this judgment.” In this regard, it requested that the Court "specify whether the State is exempt from paying the contributions to Yenina Esther Martínez Esquivia's pension fund during the period between August 2 and October 15, 2015," a when, according to the State, the victim had been reinstated to her position. 21. The Commission considered that, in the paragraphs of the judgment referring to paying the contributions to the victim's pension fund, “there is no ambiguity, lack of clarity, or contradiction, since the order of the […] Court is to pay the contributions to the victim's pension fund from the date of her dismissal, which is clearly established in court records, until March 16, 2017.” Therefore, it requested that this point of interpretation be dismissed. 22. The representatives concurred with the State, considering that the contributions to the victim's pension fund during the period when she had been reinstated to her position should be paid only once, thus making it necessary to exclude those 74 days from the payment ordered in the judgment. They clarified that the period while the victim was provisionally reinstated to her position occurred between August 2 and October 15, 2005. A.2. Considerations of the Court 23. The Court considers it pertinent to clarify the meaning of the reparation measure ordered in the operative paragraph seven, in relation to paragraph 155 of the judgment, in which the Court determined the following: 155. Mrs. Martínez Esquivia’s provisional status continued for more than twelve years, and this led to her expectation that she would remain in her post permanently. Consequently, the victim reasonably expected to remain in her post and to continue contributing to her pension. Therefore, the Court considers that the State must cover the contributions to Mrs. Martínez Esquivia’s pension from the time of her dismissal and until she would have been legally entitled to retire, namely, March 16, 2017, according to the statement she submitted 6 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment dated August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, 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 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment dated November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11 y Case Indigenous Communities of Lhaka Honhat Association (Our Land) v. Argentina. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 10. 5