declares that the representatives’ request in this regard is unfounded, since the purpose of the interpretation of a judgment is to clarify a point that is ambiguous in meaning or scope, which is not the case of the paragraph cited above. The Court therefore holds inadmissible the request made by the representatives. B.2. Medical treatment and education for Emmanuel Adrián López Soto and scholarships for the family members of Linda López Soto B.2(a) Arguments of the parties and the Commission 23. Operative paragraph 12 of the judgment ordered: The State shall, through its specialized institutions, conduct a comprehensive evaluation of Emmanuel Adrián López Soto, in order to provide him with adequate medical and educational treatment, free of charge and immediately, so that he may develop his linguistic, cognitive and motor skills, pursuant to paragraph 296 of this judgment. 24. Moreover, operative paragraph 16 of the judgment indicated: The State shall grant a scholarship in a Venezuelan public institution of their choice to Ana Secilia, Anyi Karina, Nelson Enrique, Elith Johana, Yusmely del Valle, Luz Paulina and José Isidro, all with the last name López Soto, so they may pursue technical or university higher education, or professional training, pursuant to paragraphs 311 and 312 of this judgment. 25. In this regard, the representatives expressed their “disconformity with the reparation granted, since it will contribute very little to the victims’ reparation”; consequently, they requested the Court to “assess its observations and consider the possibility of implementing the measure in an educational institution in another country.” 26. The Commission found “these concerns relevant, bearing in mind the facts of the case and the seriousness of the current context in Venezuela.” Accordingly, it asked the Court to “take into consideration the victims’ concerns” and to “assess whether the correct mechanism for making these decisions should be interpretation of judgment or instead, should be determined during the stage of [monitoring] compliance with the judgment.” 27. The State pointed out that “the request […] undeniably demonstrates the representatives’ intention to obtain a modification of the merits of the judgment issued by [the] Court and not the interpretation of an ambiguous point thereof,” noting that “the ‘disconformity with the reparation granted’ […] is evidently not a case of uncertainty or a need to clarify a point in the judgment, but an intention to challenge the Court’s ruling and to have the judgment reviewed and modified.” B.2(b) Considerations of the Court 28. The Court notes that in paragraph 311 of the judgment it was clearly established that the State “must grant a scholarship in a Venezuelan public institution of their choice.” The Court reiterates the position it expressed in paragraph 22 of this judgment of interpretation regarding the inadmissibility of using the request for interpretation to raise questions already adjudged by the Court,7 or to use it as a means to challenge the judgment.8 In this regard, the Court notes that under the appearance of a request for interpretation, the representatives’ position indicates Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment 15, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 26. 8 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment 16, and Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 26. 7 6 of Reparations and Costs, supra note 3, para. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, of Reparations and Costs, supra note 3, para. Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits,