-3corresponds, if possible, The should be the respective judgment, in accordance this occasion, the Court is made up, for judgment whose interpretation has representative (supra note 1). made up of the same judges as when issuing with Article 68.3 of the Rules of Procedure. On the most part, of the judges who delivered the been requested by the State and the III ADMISSIBILITY 8. It is the Court's task to verify whether the request filed by the State and the representative meets 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 which provides the following: 1. The request for interpretation referred to in Article 67 of the Convention may be made in connection with judgments on preliminary objections, on the merits, or on reparations and costs, and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision 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. Likewise, Article 31.3 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 10. The Court notes that the representative and the State submitted their requests for interpretation, respectively, on March 17 and 21, 2014, within the ninety-day period established in Article 67 of the Convention for submitting a request for interpretation of the judgment (supra paras. 2 and 3) since it was notified on December 23, 2013. Therefore, the requests are admissible in what refers to the term of their presentation. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 11. Below, the Court will analyze the requests from the representative and the State to determine whether, in accordance with the regulations and standards developed in its case law, it is appropriate or not to clarify the meaning or scope of the points of the judgment. 12. To analyze the origin of the requests for interpretation submitted in the case at hand, the Court takes into account its consistent case law, clearly supported by the applicable legal system, insofar as a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used as a means of challenging the decision whose interpretation has been requested. The exclusive purpose of said request is to determine the meaning of a ruling when any of the parties maintains that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that those considerations affect said operative part3. As a result, it is not possible to request amendment or nullification of the judgment in question through a request for interpretation.4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the Merits judgment. Judgment dated March 08, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. 3