IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 10. The Court will now examine the request by the representatives to determine whether, in accordance with the regulations and the standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the judgment. 11. To analyze the admissibility of the request for interpretation, the Court takes into consideration its case law, clearly supported by the applicable body of law, insofar as a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used as a means of challenging the judgment whose interpretation is requested. The request for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as a means of challenging it, but must be made for the sole purpose of working out the meaning of the decision when one of the parties maintains that the text of its operative paragraphs or its consideranda is unclear or imprecise, provided those consideranda affect the operative paragraphs of the judgment.1 Hence, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek amendment or nullification or the judgment in question.2 12. Moreover, the Court upholds the inadmissibility of using the request for interpretation to submit considerations of fact and of law already raised at the proper point in the proceedings and adjudicated by the Court,3 or to have the Court reexamine matters already decided in the judgment.4 Similarly, this mechanism cannot be used to attempt to broaden the scope of a timely ordered reparation measure.5 Based on this understanding, the Court will examine the questions raised by the representatives, as well as the claims made by the State and the Commission, respectively, and shall determine their admissibility. A. Clarification regarding operative paragraph 15 of the judgment A.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 13. The representatives made the following request for clarification regarding the reparation measure ordered in operative paragraph 15 of the judgment: a. “Clarify that the decision on whether to receive the reparation measure at a local university or a foreign university corresponds to the victim and not to the State of Venezuela,” insofar as “[t]he purpose of the reparation is to allow Linda Loaiza López to resume her life plan and continue her professional education. To this end, it is essential to clarify that the decision regarding the university where she will enroll will be made by Linda Loaiza.” Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2018, Series C No. 367, para. 11. 2 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Merits, supra note 1, para. 16, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 11. 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment of Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 12. 4 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the Judgment of Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 12. 5 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 12. 1 3