With regard to the other requirements, the Inter-American Court will perform the corresponding analysis in the next chapter. IV ANALYSIS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 8. The Court will now examine the representative’s request to determine whether, in accordance with the law and the standards developed in its case law, it is admissible to clarify the meaning or scope of any point of the judgment. 9. The Court has found that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot be used to challenge a decision whose interpretation is being requested. The exclusive purpose of such a request is to determine the meaning of a judgment when one of the parties finds that the text of its operative paragraphs or its considerations are unclear or imprecise, as long as these considerations have an impact on the operative paragraphs. Therefore, the modification or annulment of the judgment in question cannot be requested through a request for interpretation.3 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 that were already raised at the proper procedural moment and regarding which the Court has already issued a decision, 4 or to ask the Court to reassess matters that it has already ruled on in its judgment. 5 This proceeding can also not be used to broaden the scope of a measure of reparation ordered at the proper procedural moment.6 11. Hereinafter, the Inter-American Court will examine the issues raised in the following order: a) the request for interpretation regarding the compensation for non-pecuniary damage with respect to the impact on the victims' life project, and b) the request for interpretation regarding the compensation for non-pecuniary damages in relation to the alleged effect resulting from the content of Decree 1025/96. Request for interpretation regarding the compensation for non-pecuniary damage with respect to the impact on the victims' life project A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 12. The representative asked to clarify paragraph 311 of the judgment, which indicates that the Court “establishes, in equity, the sum of USD$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) that the State must pay to each of the victims—Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez and Claudia Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez” in non-pecuniary damages. According to the representative, the paragraph cited did not expressly specify Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on Merits. Order of the Court of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 47, para. 16, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 461, para. 10. 4 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment on Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 1999. Series C No. 53, para. 15, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, para. 11. 5 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 Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, para. 11. 6 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 208, para. 11, and Case of Manuela et al. v. El Salvador. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, para. 11. 3 3