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

Select target paragraph3