3 7. In accordance with cited Article, the Court is competent to interpret its judgments. In order to examine the request for interpretation and make corresponding decisions, the Tribunal should have, if it is possible, the same composition as it had when it issued the pertinent Judgment, in accordance with Article 59(3) of the Rules of Procedure. On this occasion, the Court is composed of the judges that issued the Judgment whose interpretation has been sought by the representatives, with the abovementioned modification.3 III ADMISSIBILITY 8. The Court must verify whether the request for interpretation compiles with the requirements established in the applicable norms, that is, with Article 67 of the Convention and Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes in pertinent part that: 1. [T]he request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on the merits or on reparations, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the questions relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which interpretation is requested. […] 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. 9. Additionally, Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 10. The Court observes that the State presented the request for interpretation within the time limit established in Article 67 of the Convention, given that it was submitted on November 3, 2009 and the Judgment was notified to the parties on August 5, 2009. 11. Additionally, as this Tribunal has held in its constant jurisprudence, a request for interpretation of a judgment has as its purpose, exclusively, the clarification of the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties maintains that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considering clauses lacks clarity or precision, as long as those considering clauses are relevant to the operative paragraphs.4 12. The Court shall proceed to analyze the request for interpretation submitted by the State and, if applicable, clarify the scope of Operative Paragraph Five of the Judgment. For that purpose, it shall examine the question raised by the State, as well as the observations of the representative. IV SCOPE OF OPERATIVE PARAGRAPH FIVE OF THE JUDGMENT 3 4 Cf. supra note 1. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 7, 2009. Series C No. 201, para. 8; Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2008. Series C No. 188, para. 7.