5 17. Given the arguments made by the parties, the Court is to clarify whether, under the terms of its February 6, 2001 judgment, the reparations owed by the State include material damages resulting from the violation of Mr. Ivcher’s rights. 18. Article 63(1) of the American Convention reads as follows: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measures or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 19. The Court has previously held that [the] request or petition for interpretation of a judgment may not be used as a means of challenging it, but must be made for the sole purpose of working out the meaning of the decision when one of the parties maintains that the text of its operative paragraphs or its consideranda is unclear or imprecise, provided those consideranda affect that operative paragraph. Hence, a request for interpretation may not be used to seek amendment or nullification of the judgment in question.5 20. In the pertinent operative paragraphs of the judgment whose interpretation is sought, the Court 7. ... finds that the State must investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations established in this judgment in order to identify and punish those responsible. 8. ... finds that the State must facilitate the conditions to enable Baruch Ivcher Bronstein to take the necessary steps to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as majority shareholder of Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A., as he was until August 1, 1997, under the terms of domestic legislation. With regard to the recovery of dividends and other amounts that he would have received as majority shareholder and officer of that company, domestic law should also apply. To this end, the respective claims should be submitted to the competent national authorities. 9. ... finds that, in fairness, the State must pay Baruch Ivcher Bronstein compensation for moral damages in the amount of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Peruvian currency at the time the payment is made. 10. ... finds the State must pay Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, in reimbursement of the costs and expenses arising in the internal and the international jurisdictions, the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Peruvian currency at the time payment is made. 21. Thus, the judgment on the merits is very clear on the various reparations that the Peruvian State owes: a) 5 In the case of moral damages and court costs and expenses, the judgment orders specific amounts, quantified in United States dollars or the equivalent in Peruvian currency; Suárez Rosero Case. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations. (Art. 67 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 29, 1999. Series C No. 51, para. 20; Loayza Tamayo Case. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of September 1, 1997. Order of the Court of March 8, 1999. Series C No. 47, para. 16, consistent with the Neira Alegría et al. Case. Order of the Court of July 3, 1992. Annual Report 1992, p.79, para. 23.