IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 9. This Court will analyze the requests from the representatives and the State to determine if, according to the regulations and the standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the judgment. 10. To analyze the admissibility of the requests from the representatives and the State, the Court takes into account its consistent case law, clearly supported by the applicable legal system, insofar as a request for interpretation of the judgment cannot be used as a means of challenging the decision requiring an interpretation. The purpose of said request is exclusively to determine the meaning of a ruling when any of the parties maintains that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, as long as those considerations affect said operative part. Therefore, it is not possible to request the modification or annulment of the respective judgment through a request for interpretation.1 11. Adicionalmente, la Corte ha sostenido la improcedencia de utilizar una solicitud de interpretación para someter cuestiones de hecho y de derecho que ya fueron planteadas en su oportunidad procesal y sobre las cuales la Corte ya adoptó una Additionally, the Court has upheld the inadmissibility of using a request for interpretation to submit questions of fact and law that were already raised at the procedural opportunity and on which the Court has already adopted a decision,2 as well as to claim that the Court reassess issues that it has already resolved in its judgment.3 In the same way, there cannot be a request for the broadening of the reach of a measure for reparation.4 12. The Inter-American Court will examine below the issues raised by the representatives and the State, in the following order: A. Method of payment and distribution of the amounts in equity, and B. Investigation of the alleged acts of torture with respect to Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval. A. Method of payment and distribution of the amounts in equity 13. The representatives requested clarification on the scope of the payment in equity for consequential damages. They considered that it is necessary for the Court to clarify what is meant by family groups, that is, to whom the ordered payments should be made and based on what criteria the payments should be made, because they do not seem to be established in paragraph 328 of the judgment. 14. Regarding this request, the Court notes that there was a material typographical error when indicating the paragraph that elaborates the scope and criteria of the corresponding payment. Therefore, it clarifies the following: the paragraph intended to elaborate said point Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, paras. 12 and 16, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 14, 2019. Series C No. 379, para. 11. 2 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 12. 3 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 12. 4 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 12. 1 -3-