modification or annulment of the respective Judgment cannot be requested by means of a request for interpretation. 6 18. In addition, the Court has indicated the inadmissibility of using a request for interpretation to submit factual and legal issues that have already been brought up at the appropriate procedural opportunity and regarding which the Court has already adopted a decision, 7 or to seek that the Court re-assess matters that it has already decided in its Judgment. 8 Similarly, this mechanism cannot be used to try and expand the scope of a measure of reparation that has been ordered at the opportune moment. 9 Furthermore, the Court has also indicated that the formulation of abstract or hypothetical situations bears no relationship to the purpose of a request for interpretation of judgment. 10 19. Regarding the determination of the victims in this case and the application of Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure, 11 in paragraphs 51, 56 and 57 of the Judgment, the Court established the following criteria: 51. The Court notes that it is difficult to identify and individualize each presumed victim owing to the scale of this case, which relates to massacres perpetrated in seven different places, to the nature of the events and the circumstances surrounding them, and to the time that has passed. Consequently, it finds it reasonable to apply Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure in this case. […] 56. In addition, the Court observes that, from the explanation provided by the representatives in relation to the column headed “location” in their lists, this corresponds to “the specific place where the victims were executed” […]; thus, some people included on the lists were victims of execution in the departmental capital of Arambala, or in the canton of Tierra Colorada, the village of Pinalito, and the village of Guacamaya. However, the factual framework of this case does not include events that occurred in these places. Consequently, the Court will not consider the persons who suffered a possible violation of their rights in the said places to be victims in this case, unless the evidence reveals that, at the time of the facts, they were in one of the places that are the object of this case. 57. Considering that the State is not opposed to persons other than those indicated by the Commission being included as presumed victims, owing to the particularities of this case, the Court will consider victims those persons identified and individualized by the Commission in its lists attached to the merits report and/or by the representatives in their lists attached to their final written arguments, who have suffered any human rights violation in the context of the massacres in the village of El Mozote, the canton of La Joya, the villages of Ranchería, Los Toriles and Jocote Amarillo, the canton of Cerro Pando, and a cave on Cerro Ortiz, provided that the Court has the necessary evidence to verify the identity of each of these individuals. Based on these criteria and the evidence that has been provided, this Court has been able to determine a Daughters v. Chile. Request for interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2012. Series C No. 254, para. 11. 6 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, para. 16, and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile., para. 11. 7 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, para. 15, and Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, para. 33. 8 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 Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, para. 34. 9 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. 10 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 62, para. 27, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2008. Series C No. 176, para. 16. 11 According to Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, “[w]hen it has not been possible to identify one or more of the alleged victims who figure in the facts of the case because it concerns massive or collective violations, the Court shall decide whether to consider those individuals as victims.” 6