IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. The Court will now examine the representatives’ request for interpretation to determine whether, based on the rules and the standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any provision of the judgment. 9. The Court has indicated that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used as a means to challenge a decision whose interpretation is required. The purpose of such a 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 is unclear or imprecise, provided that those considerations affect said operative paragraphs of the judgment. Hence, the amendment or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be sought through a request for interpretation. 1 10. The Court has also held that it is inadmissible to use 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, 2 or to seek that the Court reassess matters already decided in the judgment. 3 Similarly, this proceeding cannot be used to attempt to broaden the scope of a reparation measure ordered in a timely manner. 4 11. Accordingly, the Court will now examine the matters raised by the representatives, as well as the observations made by the State, in the following order: a) regarding the twelfth operative paragraph, and b) regarding the seventeenth operative paragraph. A. Regarding the twelfth operative paragraph A.1. Arguments of the parties 12. The representatives requested that the Court clarify the location where the public memorial in remembrance of Gabriel Sales Pimenta should be built, as ordered in the twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment. To this effect, they explained that although the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter, “pleadings and motions brief”) indicated the city of Belo Horizonte, in the State of Mina Gerais as the site for its construction, ten days later –before the deadline to file the response - they requested that said city be substituted with the city of Juiz de Fora, also located in Minas Gerais. In addition, they pointed out that, on subsequent occasions, both the representatives and the victims had referred to the city of Juiz de Fora as the site for the construction of the aforementioned memorial. 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, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 480, para. 10. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations and costs, supra, para. 15, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, supra, para. 11. 2 3 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Interpretation of judgment on reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2011. Series C No. 230, para. 30, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, supra, para. 11. 4 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 National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, supra, para. 11. 3