3 7. The Court must verify whether the application for interpretation complies with the requirements established in the norms applicable, which are Article 67 of the Convention and the pertinent parts of Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure which establish that: 1. The 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 issues relating to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the 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 8. Furthermore, Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure establishes “[j]udgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way .” that 9. The Court has verified that the State filed its application for interpretation within the time established in Article 67 of the Convention, since it was submitted on October 31, 2007, and the judgment had been notified to the parties on August 3, 2007. 10. Moreover, as the Court has previously decided in its consistent case law based clearly on the applicable laws, a request for interpretation of judgment should not be used in order to contest the decision whose interpretation is requested. The purpose of the application is exclusively to clarify the meaning of a ruling when one of the parties claims that the text of its operative paragraphs or of its findings lacks clarity or precision, provided that these findings have an impact on the said operative paragraphs. Accordingly, the modification or annulment of the respective judgment cannot be requested by an application for interpretation.1 11. In this regard, the Court has established that the application for interpretation of judgment cannot consider factual and legal matters that have already been brought up at the appropriate procedural moment, and regarding which the Court has adopted a decision.2 12. The Court will proceed to examine the application for interpretation submitted by the State and, if applicable, clarify the meaning or scope of the judgment. To this end, it will examine the three questions raised in the said application separately, and also the observations of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. Cf. IACourtHR. Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Interpretation of judgment on merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16; IACourtHR. Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Perú. Request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2007. Series C No. 174, para. 11; and IACourtHR. La Cantuta v. Perú. Interpretation of judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2007. Series C No. 173, para. 9. 1 Cf. IACourtHR. Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations. Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15; IACourtHR. Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Perú. Request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 1, para. 12; and IACourtHR. La Cantuta v. Perú. Interpretation of judgment on merits, reparations and costs, supra note 1, para. 32. 2