Considerations of the Court 32. The Court notes that footnote number 304 of the Judgment established the following: With regard to the proceeding ordered by the Court and held in Santiago de Chile […] on February 6, 2012 the representatives reported that Ms. Atala “has had to defray the costs of transport for Ms. Alicia Espinoza and her young daughters, who were not in Santiago for the purpose of ensuring their appearance at [said] proceeding,” for which reason they requested that the Court “take into consideration the costs incurred by Ms. Atala when determining the costs of this process” […]However, no receipts for expenses were attached in relation to this last request.9 33. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Court emphasizes that, in calculating the amount corresponding to costs and expenses, it took into account the fact that the representatives had presented a request, but did not submit any receipts to support it. Therefore, the Court considers that the request of the representatives to add the fees and travel expenses to the costs incurred by expert witness María Alicia Espinoza constitutes a new request related to factual and legal issues on which the Court has already made a decision. In this regard, the Court has established that a request for interpretation of judgment cannot address factual and legal matters that were raised at the proper procedural moment and on which the Court has already issued a ruling.10 34. Consequently, the request for interpretation is deemed inadmissible inasmuch as the Judgment is clear regarding the elements that were assessed to determine the amount awarded for costs and expenses. Also, the Court considers that the representatives seek to raise matters that have already been decided by the Court, without any possibility of the ruling being amended or extended 11, according to Articles 67 of the American Convention and 31(3) and 68 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the Court declares inadmissible the representatives’ request for interpretation of this point. V OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 35. Therefore, THE COURT pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention on Human rights and Articles 31(3) and 68 of the Rules of Procedure, DECIDES: 9 Cf. Case of Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 302, footnote on page 304. 10 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations and Costs, para. 15; and Case of Abril Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 17. 11 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, supra note 1, para. 16; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Interpretation of Judgment on Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 15, 2011. Series C No. 225, para. 11. 8