4. A request for interpretation shall not suspend the effect of the judgment. 5. The Court shall determine the procedure to be followed and shall render its decision in the form of a judgment. 8. Furthermore, Article 31(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” that the 9. The Court observes that the representatives presented their request for interpretation of the Judgment within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention, because it was notified on December 18, 2012. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 10. As this Court has established in its consistent case law, clearly supported by the applicable law, a request for interpretation of judgment may not be used as a means of contesting the decision the interpretation of which is requested. The exclusive purpose of this request is to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties affirms that the text of its operative paragraphs or of its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that these considerations have an impact on the said operative paragraphs. 3 Consequently, it is not possible to request the modification or annulment of the respective judgment by means of a request for interpretation.4 11. Furthermore, the Court has affirmed the inadmissibility of using a request for interpretation in order to submit factual or legal questions that were brought up at the appropriate procedural moment and on which the Court has already adopted a decision.5 12. The Court will proceed to analyze the request for interpretation filed by the representatives in order to determine whether it is in order to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the Judgment. To this end, it will examine the questions posed by the representatives, as well as the arguments and observations of the State and of the Commission. 13. The representatives filed the request for interpretation for the Court to clarify “various aspects related to the reparations ordered in favor of the victims,” which they divided into three elements: (i) an alleged discrepancy between the persons identified as injured party and the entitlement to the reparations ordered; (ii) the victims of forced displacement, and (iii) the situation of the next of kin of Luis Enrique Ropero and others. Nevertheless, the representatives posed several questions that were not clearly related to these issues; therefore, the Court will examine each question in the order in which it was posed, namely: 3 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2012. Series C No. 254, para. 11. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, para. 16, and Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, para. 11. 5 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; 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 Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of November 21, 2011, Series C NO. 235, para. 17. 3