7 15. The European Court of Human Rights, on the basis of Article 57 of Rules A of that Tribunal, which is similar to the aforementioned precept of the American Convention, pointed out that the interpretation of a decision calls implies an explanation not only of the text of its operative paragraphs, but also a determination of the scope, meaning and purpose of its considerations (Eur. Court H. R. Ringeisen Case (Interpretation of the Judgment of 22 June 1972), Judgment of 23 June 1973, Series A, Vol 16). 16. By the same token, this Court considers that the request or petition 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 that operative paragraph. Hence, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek amendment or nullification or the judgment in question. 17. This Court, in studying the State's arguments summarized above (supra, para. 12), observes that an improper attempt is being made, in the guise of a request for interpretation, to amend the judgment on merits rendered by this Tribunal on September 17, 1997 in the Loayza Tamayo case, inasmuch as Peru alleges that the decision was based on omissions in some aspects and is incorrectly founded on others. 18. On this subject, in two recent judgments the European Court of Human Rights applied the same criterion adopted by this Court when it considered that interpretation of a judgment shall not alter its binding aspects (Eur. Court HR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 7 August 1996 (interpretation) and Eur. Court HR, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 3 July 1997 (interpretation), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV). 19. With regard to the State's request for an explanation of the scope of the provision contained in paragraph 84 of the decision which states that "[t]he State of Peru must, in accordance with the provisions of its domestic law, order the release of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo within a reasonable time", the Court considers that Peru duly complied with that part of the judgment by releasing her on October 16, 1997, for which reason there is no sense to the request for interpretation V NOW, THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 29(2) and 58 of its Rules of Procedure, RESOLVES: unanimously, To reject as out of order the request for interpretation submitted by the State of Peru.