the next chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. The Court will now examine the representative’s request to determine whether, in accordance with the law and the standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the judgment. 9. The Court has found that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used to challenge a decision whose interpretation is being requested. The exclusive purpose of such a request is to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties finds that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations are unclear or imprecise, as long as these considerations have an impact on the operative paragraphs. Therefore, the modification or annulment of the judgment in question 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 moment and regarding which the Court has already issued a decision, 4 or to ask the Court to reassess matters that it has already ruled on in the judgment. 5 This proceeding can also not be used to broaden the scope of a measure of reparation ordered at the proper procedural moment. 6 11. Hereinafter, the Inter-American Court will examine the issues raised in the following order: a) the request for interpretation in relation to the right to social benefits with a view to future retirement; and b) the request for interpretation in relation to the validity of the sanction imposed on the victim. A. Request for interpretation in relation to the right to social benefits with a view to future retirement A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 12. The representative indicated that the judgment declared the Ecuadorian State internationally responsible for the violation of the right to work, in its labor stability dimension, recognized in Article 26 of the American Convention. He indicated that in previous rulings, which also found that the aforementioned Article 26 had been violated, the Court "has in Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of 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. Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 480, para. 10. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on Merits, 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. 4 Cf. Case Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, 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 Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, 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. 6 3