-4- 13. Additionally, the Court has upheld the inadmissibility of using a request for interpretation to submit questions of fact and law that were already raised in their procedural opportunity and on which the Court has already taken a decision,5 as well as to seek that the Court re-assess issues that have already been decided in the judgment.6 Similarly, it is not possible to try to broaden the reach of a measure for reparation ordered in a timely manner.7 Meanwhile, the Court has also indicated that the formulation of abstract or hypothetical situations has nothing to do with the purpose of a request for interpretation of judgment.8 14. Under this understanding, the Court will examine the requests for interpretation made (supra paras. 2 and 3), as well as the arguments presented in this regard by the parties and the Commission, respectively, and will determine their admissibility. If the respective request is deemed admissible, this Court will make the pertinent clarifications and precisions in order to contribute to the effective implementation of the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment, without expanding their scope. Along these lines, it is pertinent to remember that in this case, the wording of the considerations expressed in the judgment would simply be clarified, given that said judgment is final and unappealable (supra para 9), and clearing doubts about its original scope. 15. Next, the Court will proceed to analyze the arguments presented by the representative and the State in their requests for interpretation, in the following order: (A) the legal classification of the mistreatment to which Ms. J. was subjected; (B) the legal effects of the violation of rights mentioned in paragraph 227 of the judgment; (C) the criteria and methodology for determining the amounts set as costs and expenses, and (D) the application of Article 76 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. A. The legal characterization of the ill-treatment to which Ms. J was subject. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 16. did The State pointed out that in paragraphs 357 to 368 of the judgment, the Court not specify specifically whether the mistreatment that Ms. J suffered Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, judgment of August 21, 2014. Series C No. 280, para. 17. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment of Merits, para. 16, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 17. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment of Merits, para. 15, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs, 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 the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment of Merits, Reparations and Costs, 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 the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 18. 7 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Peru Interpretation of the judgment of Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 62, para. 27, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 18. 8