7.
It is the responsibility of the Court to verify whether the requests presented by the
representative and the State meet the requirements established in the norms applicable
to a request for interpretation of judgment, namely Article 67 of the aforementioned
Convention and Article 68 of the Rules of Procedure. Similarly, Article 31(3) of the Rules
of Procedure establishes that "[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested
in any way."
8.
The Court notes that both the representative and the State presented their
requests for interpretation within the 90-day period established in Article 67 of the
Convention. Because the parties were notified of the judgment on December 18, 2020,
their requests for interpretation presented on March 12 and 18, 2021, are admissible as
regards their timeliness. Regarding the other requirements, the Inter-American Court
will analyze the merits in the following chapter.
IV
ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATION
9.
This Court will examine the requests of the representative and of the State to
determine whether, based on the rules and standards developed in its case law, it is
appropriate to clarify the meaning or scope of any provision of the judgment.
10. The Court has indicated that a request for interpretation of a judgment cannot be
used as a means of challenging the decision whose interpretation is required. The
purpose of said request is exclusively to determine the meaning of a ruling when one 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 paragraphs.
Therefore, the modification or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be sought
through a request for interpretation.3
11. Additionally, the Court has upheld the inadmissibility of using a request for
interpretation to submit considerations on matters of fact and law already raised at the
proper procedural time and on which the Court has already adopted a decision, 4 nor to
seek that the Court again assess matters already decided in the judgment.5 Similarly,
this avenue cannot be used to attempt to broaden the scope of a reparation measure
ordered in a timely manner.6
12. Below, the Inter-American Court will examine the matters raised in the following
order: a) the representative's request for interpretation regarding the
Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits. Order of the Court on
March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Interpretation of the
Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of June 21, 2021. Series C No. 428,
para. 17.
4
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 Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Interpretation of the
Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, supra para. 18.
5
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 Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia.
Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, supra para. 18.
6
Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits,
Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Martínez
Esquivia v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations, supra
para. 18.
3
3