6 13. Under Article 29(3) of the Rules of Procedure, “Judgments and orders of the Court may not be contested in any way.” 14. The Court is satisfied with the representatives filing the request for interpretation on October 14, 2005 within the term set forth in Article 67 of the Convention (supra para. 11), since the Judgment on the merits was notified to the representatives on July 14, 2005. 15. In addition, as previously decided by this Court, a request for interpretation must not be used as a means for challenging a judgment, but it may only seek to clarify the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties argues that the language of its operative paragraphs or its considerations lacks clarity or precision, provided that such considerations have a bearing on the operative paragraphs; hence, no party may seek to alter or annul the judgment through a request for interpretation.3 16. In addition, the Court has held that the request for interpretation of a judgment may not involve raising issues of fact or of law already asserted at the appropriate stage of the proceedings and on which the Court has entered a decision.4 17. In analyzing whether the representatives’ request for interpretation is admissible and, if appropriate, in order to clarify the meaning or scope of the Judgment on the merits issued on June 17, 2005, the Inter-American Court will now consider the two issues raised by the representatives separately (supra para. 6). VI ON THE TERRITORIES TO IDENTIFY (SIXTH OPERATIVE PARAGRAPH OF THE JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS, REPARATIONS AND COSTS) Arguments of the victims’ representatives 18. The representatives argued that “throughout the proceedings held before the international courts, both the Inter-American Commission [and] the victims’ representatives have asserted […] that the lands claimed by the Yakye Axa 3 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Request for Interpretation of the Judgments on the Merits, Reparations and Costs (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 9, 2005. Series C No. 131, para. 14; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 128, para. 12, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 14. 4 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs, supra note 1, para. 15; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 1, para. 11, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, supra note 1, para. 40.